Apparently my employer has recently made a big deal and sold our software to a large group of users, but the users now want to reverse their decision based on other customer’s opinions of our software. Not sure why this group of customers only found out these opinions after making the deal.

We had a meeting with the new Head Of Development to discuss what we can do about it. The overall aim is that we need to repair our reputation: fixing major bugs, improving performance, improving the user experience in general, and making it clear to our customers that we value their opinion.

He initially stated that he wants more bug fixes, especially performance improvements and delivered in smaller, but frequent releases. He states that the current process doesn’t work and we should ignore it and come up with a new one.

Sounds great in principle, and a desired philosophy of Agile Development. However, Release Management stated it wasn’t possible to update the entire customer-base so quickly. This is partially due to the way some users work, and some contractual obligations. Both of these problems pretty much come down to the idea of essentially wanting close to zero downtime, so they want to choose a specific time to accept our updates, and they like this to be around once a month.

So the discussion turned to the development side. It seemed we were in agreement that we need higher-skilled staff to target these important bugs (we love throwing Juniors at these important issues), and we would also like to work in Domain based teams. Examples of this team idea is that you’d have one team that exclusively handles the Reporting module, and another handles Registration module etc. This way you can have a fuller understanding of all the configuration, features and the codebase; so can fix/enhance the software faster. Essentially you specialise, rather than going with the jack-of-all-trades master-of-none style. We also wanted more Testers since some teams have produced a lot of fixes recently but the Testers couldn’t get through it. To be honest, I expected that some Testers were just working slow and the fix isn’t necessarily to throw more staff members at the problem (just have a stern word).

The response from the Head of Development was that “the business” has decided on the team sizes and who is in those teams – and they won’t change. 

So to summarise – we are asked how we can make dramatic changes to the way we work, ignoring the current process… then get told we can’t do our ideas. We’d shot-down his suggestion, then he shoots down ours.

I think he shot down our suggestion because he is too focussed on the current process and structure, and he isn’t taking his own advice by ignoring it and coming up with a new idea. To be honest, it is easier said than done, and I think his way of thinking is – how to preserve the current in-flight projects? You can’t simply restructure the entire department without dealing with the current projects.

What you can do is just make the current project teams bigger and let them take the project and some bug fixes. With a bigger team, they can easily carry on with their project work, and with the extra people, they take on live Bugs, fixing “Technical Debt”, adding more automated tests etc.

I get confused how we get told these “Service Improvement” teams (teams that deal with bug fixes only) are the most important, yet it’s the Project teams that get the most experienced developers and the most attention. He has limited the “Service Improvement” teams to 20 developers with only 4 with Senior rank, one of which isn’t good enough to be Senior. Then most of the other developers are essentially Juniors. 

How can you deal with important bugs with a lack of talent? It’s frustrating that he arranges a meeting to ask how we can solve our way of working, but then he doesn’t listen to the feedback.

If he wants a quality product and to deliver faster, then we need the staff and process to actually achieve it.