| I'm very lucky to work in a place where they understand the limitations of this policy. Most of the product we work on (not a CRUD app) is finished or at least at a fairly mature state. But the area I work on is not. For a while they harped on us about following the process. But due to their lack of interest on what we were doing and some managers protecting us, we ended up able to make rapid changes in response to test failures, often several times a day. It was incredible. They would seek investigations through change requests on bugs found in testing. Immediately after they were entered - before the change request even went to the overseeing group of project engineers and subject matter experts - we would tell them what caused the problem and write that we had committed a fix to the mainline. This circumvented days of waiting for a response that would have blown our schedule apart. It paid off big. Today for the first time our tests all started passing. They've been failures for years and no one expected anything close. There's a time for process. When a lot can break or you have a finished/safety-critical product you want to lock it down. But in initial development of new features, you have to throw it out and do what's right. For a while they were demanding change control with CRs over software that had never been written or run successfully. Why even bother writing the CR if it never worked in the first place? That means the software wasn't done in the first place, not in a state requiring change control! It was unusually rapid iteration between the test and development teams, who should sit next to each other and immerse themselves in making the software work. Only by rapidly uncovering and overturning problems like this can you ever get something close enough to stable to lock it down this way. Development and test respected each other, understood what had to be done, and by working together discussing behavior and the test environment were able to determine what the software should do and how best to test this functionality. There were times where waiting for the process would have taken us 5 days to get approval to fix a bug. By talking with our project engineer and going ahead with the testers - who realized it was not the time to stick to formal process - we were able to succeed. I'm very lucky. The testers were cool and understood the state of the software and were willing to shout across the cube and explain what was failing. We worked together and managed to succeed by knowing when a process was important and when the managers would be happier to go around it. The problems encountered here are mainly about people. We had testers and others who trusted and worked with us. When you don't have that - like the author of the article - it takes some social engineers and lawyer like knowledge and parsing of company policy to get around the problems. |