Introduction to Software
Engineering |
Lecture 3 Agile Software
Development |
Topics covered
Agile methods
Plan-driven and agile development
Extreme programming
Agile project management
Scaling agile methods
Rapid software development
Rapid development and delivery is now often the most important
requirement for software systems
Businesses operate in a fast changing requirement and it is practically
impossible to produce a set of stable software requirements
Software has to evolve quickly to reflect changing business needs.
Rapid software development
Specification, design and implementation are inter-leaved
System is developed as a series of versions with stakeholders involved
in version evaluation
User interfaces are often developed using an IDE and graphical toolset.
Agile methods
Dissatisfaction with the overheads involved in software design methods
of the 1980s and 1990s led to the creation of agile methods. These methods:
Focus on the code rather than the design
Are based on an iterative approach to software development
Are intended to deliver working software quickly and evolve this quickly
to meet changing requirements.
The aim of agile methods is to reduce overheads in the software process
(e.g. by limiting documentation) and to be able to respond quickly to changing
requirements without excessive rework.
Agile manifesto
We are uncovering better ways of developing
software by doing it and helping others do it.
Through this work we have come to value:
Individuals and interactions over processes and tools
Working software over comprehensive documentation
Customer collaboration over contract negotiation
Responding to change over following a plan
That is, while there is value in the items on
the right, we value the items on the left
more.
The principles of agile methods
Principle |
Description |
Customer involvement |
Customers should be closely involved throughout the
development process. Their role is provide and prioritize new system
requirements and to evaluate the iterations of the system. |
Incremental delivery |
The software is developed in increments with the
customer specifying the requirements to be included in each increment. |
People not process |
The skills of the development team should be
recognized and exploited. Team members should be left to develop their own
ways of working without prescriptive processes. |
Embrace change |
Expect the system requirements to change and so
design the system to accommodate these changes. |
Maintain simplicity |
Focus on simplicity in both the software being
developed and in the development process. Wherever possible, actively work to
eliminate complexity from the system. |
Agile method applicability
Product development where a software company
is developing a small or medium-sized product for sale.
Custom system development within an organization,
where there is a clear commitment from the customer to become involved in the
development process and where there are not a lot of external rules and
regulations that affect the software.
Because of their focus on small,
tightly-integrated teams, there are problems in scaling agile methods to large
systems.
Problems with agile methods
It can be difficult to keep the interest of customers who are involved
in the process.
Team members may be unsuited to the intense involvement that characterizes
agile methods.
Prioritizing changes can be difficult where there are multiple
stakeholders.
Maintaining simplicity requires extra work.
Contracts may be a problem as with other approaches to iterative
development.
Agile methods and software maintenance
Most organizations spend more on maintaining existing software than they
do on new software development. So, if agile methods are to be successful, they
have to support maintenance as well as original development.
Two key issues:
Are systems that are developed using an agile
approach maintainable, given the emphasis in the development process of
minimizing formal documentation?
Can agile methods be used effectively for
evolving a system in response to customer change requests?
Problems may arise if original development
team cannot be maintained.
Plan-driven and agile development
Plan-driven development
A plan-driven approach to software engineering is based around separate
development stages with the outputs to be produced at each of these stages
planned in advance.
Not necessarily waterfall model plan-driven, incremental development
is possible
Iteration occurs within activities.
Agile development
Specification, design, implementation and testing are inter-leaved and
the outputs from the development process are decided through a process of
negotiation during the software development process.
Plan-driven and agile specification
Technical, human, organizational issues
Most projects include elements of
plan-driven and agile processes. Deciding on the balance depends on:
Is it important to have a very detailed
specification and design before moving to implementation? If so, you probably
need to use a plan-driven approach.
Is an incremental delivery strategy, where
you deliver the software to customers and get rapid feedback from them,
realistic? If so, consider using agile methods.
How large is the system that is being
developed? Agile methods are most effective when the system can be developed
with a small co-located team who can communicate informally. This may not be
possible for large systems that require larger development teams so a
plan-driven approach may have to be used.
What type of system is being developed?
Plan-driven approaches may be required for
systems that require a lot of analysis before implementation (e.g. real-time
system with complex timing requirements).
What is the expected system lifetime?
Long-lifetime systems may require more design
documentation to communicate the original intentions of the system developers
to the support team.
What technologies are available to support
system development?
Agile methods rely on good tools to keep
track of an evolving design
How is the development team organized?
If the development team is distributed or if
part of the development is being outsourced, then you may need to develop
design documents to communicate across the development teams.
Are there cultural or organizational issues
that may affect the system development?
Traditional engineering organizations have a
culture of plan-based development, as this is the norm in engineering.
How good are the designers and programmers in
the development team?
It is sometimes
argued that agile methods require higher skill levels than plan-based
approaches in which programmers simply translate a detailed design into code
Is the system subject to external regulation?
If a system has to be approved by an external
regulator (e.g. the FAA approve software that is critical to the operation of
an aircraft) then you will probably be required to produce detailed
documentation as part of the system safety case.
Extreme programming
Perhaps the best-known and most widely used
agile method.
Extreme Programming (XP) takes an extreme
approach to iterative development.
New versions may be built several times per
day;
Increments are delivered to customers every
2 weeks;
All tests must be run for every build and
the build is only accepted if tests run successfully.
XP and agile principles
Incremental development is supported through small, frequent system
releases.
Customer involvement means full-time customer engagement with the team.
People not process through pair programming, collective ownership and a
process that avoids long working hours.
Change supported through regular system releases.
Maintaining simplicity through constant refactoring of code.
The extreme programming release cycle
Extreme programming practices
Principle or practice |
Description |
Incremental planning |
Requirements are recorded on story cards and the stories
to be included in a release are determined by the time available and their
relative priority. The developers break these stories into development
Tasks. See Figures 3.5 and 3.6. |
Small releases |
The minimal useful set of functionality that provides
business value is developed first. Releases of the system are frequent and
incrementally add functionality to the first release. |
Simple design |
Enough design is carried out to meet the current
requirements and no more. |
Test-first development |
An automated unit test framework is used to write
tests for a new piece of functionality before that functionality itself is
implemented. |
Refactoring |
All developers are expected to refactor the code
continuously as soon as possible code improvements are found. This keeps the
code simple and maintainable. |
Pair programming |
Developers work in pairs, checking each others work and providing the
support to always do a good job. |
Collective ownership |
The pairs of developers work on all areas of the system, so that no
islands of expertise develop and all the developers take responsibility for
all of the code. Anyone can change anything. |
Continuous integration |
As soon as the work on a task is complete, it is integrated into the
whole system. After any such integration, all the unit tests in the system
must pass. |
Sustainable pace |
Large amounts of overtime are not considered acceptable as the net
effect is often to reduce code quality and medium term productivity |
On-site customer |
A representative of the end-user of the system (the customer) should
be available full time for the use of the XP team. In an extreme programming
process, the customer is a member of the development team and is responsible
for bringing system requirements to the team for implementation. |
Requirements scenarios
In XP, a customer or user is part of the XP team and is responsible for
making decisions on requirements.
User requirements are expressed as scenarios or user stories.
These are written on cards and the development team
break them down into implementation tasks. These tasks are the basis of
schedule and cost estimates.
The customer chooses the stories for inclusion in the next release based
on their priorities and the schedule estimates.
A prescribing medication story
Examples of task cards for prescribing medication
XP and change
Conventional wisdom in software engineering
is to design for change. It is worth spending time and effort anticipating
changes as this reduces costs later in the life cycle.
XP, however, maintains that this is not
worthwhile as changes cannot be reliably anticipated.
Rather, it proposes constant code
improvement (refactoring) to make changes easier when they have to be
implemented.
Refactoring
Programming team look for possible software
improvements and make these improvements even where there is no immediate need
for them.
This improves the understandability of the software and so reduces the
need for documentation.
Changes are easier to make because the code is well-structured and
clear.
However, some changes requires architecture
refactoring and this is much more expensive.
Examples of refactoring
Re-organization of a class hierarchy to remove duplicate code.
Tidying up and renaming attributes and methods to make them easier to
understand.
The replacement of inline code with calls to methods that have been
included in a program library.
Testing in XP
Testing is central to XP and XP has developed an approach where the
program is tested after every change has been made.
XP testing features:
Test-first development.
Incremental test development from scenarios.
User involvement in test development and validation.
Automated test harnesses are used to run all component tests each time
that a new release is built.
Test-first development
Writing tests before code clarifies the
requirements to be implemented.
Tests are written as programs rather than
data so that they can be executed automatically. The test includes a check that
it has executed correctly.
Usually relies on a testing framework such
as Junit.
All previous and new tests are run
automatically when new functionality is added, thus checking that the new
functionality has not introduced errors.
Customer involvement
The role of the customer in the testing
process is to help develop acceptance tests for the stories that are to be implemented
in the next release of the system.
The customer who is part of the team writes
tests as development proceeds. All new code is therefore validated to ensure
that it is what the customer needs.
However, people adopting the customer role
have limited time available and so cannot work full-time with the development
team. They may feel that providing the requirements was enough of a
contribution and so may be reluctant to get involved in the testing process.
Test case description for dose checking
Test automation
Test automation means that tests are written
as executable components before the task is implemented
These testing components should be
stand-alone, should simulate the submission of input to be tested and should
check that the result meets the output specification. An automated test
framework (e.g. Junit) is a system that makes it easy to write executable tests
and submit a set of tests for execution.
As testing is automated, there is always a
set of tests that can be quickly and easily executed
Whenever any functionality is added to the
system, the tests can be run and problems that the new code has introduced can
be caught immediately.
XP testing difficulties
Programmers prefer programming to testing and
sometimes they take short cuts when writing tests. For example, they may write
incomplete tests that do not check for all possible exceptions that may occur.
Some tests can be very difficult to write incrementally.
For example, in a complex user interface, it is often difficult to write unit
tests for the code that implements the display logic and workflow between
screens.
It difficult to judge the completeness of a
set of tests. Although you may have a lot of system
tests, your test set may not provide complete coverage.
Pair programming
In XP, programmers work in pairs, sitting
together to develop code.
This helps develop common ownership of code
and spreads knowledge across the team.
It serves as an informal review process as
each line of code is looked at by more than 1 person.
It encourages refactoring as the whole team
can benefit from this.
Measurements suggest that development
productivity with pair programming is similar to that of two people working
independently.
In pair programming, programmers sit together
at the same workstation to develop the software.
Pairs are created dynamically so that all
team members work with each other during the development process.
The sharing of knowledge that happens during
pair programming is very important as it reduces the overall risks to a project
when team members leave.
Pair programming is not necessarily
inefficient and there is evidence that a pair working together is more
efficient than 2 programmers working separately.
Advantages of pair programming
It supports the idea of collective ownership
and responsibility for the system.
Individuals are not held responsible for
problems with the code. Instead, the team has collective responsibility for
resolving these problems.
It acts as an informal review process because
each line of code is looked at by at least two people.
It helps support refactoring, which is a
process of software improvement.
Where pair programming and collective ownership
are used, others benefit immediately from the refactoring so they are likely to
support the process.
Agile project management
The principal responsibility of software
project managers is to manage the project so that the software is delivered on
time and within the planned budget for the project.
The standard approach to project management
is plan-driven. Managers draw up a plan for the project showing what should be
delivered, when it should be delivered and who will work on the development of
the project deliverables.
Agile project management requires a different
approach, which is adapted to incremental development and the particular
strengths of agile methods.
Scrum
The Scrum approach is a general agile method
but its focus is on managing iterative development rather than specific agile
practices.
There are three phases in Scrum.
The initial phase is an outline planning
phase where you establish the general objectives for the project and design the
software architecture.
This is followed by a series of sprint
cycles, where each cycle develops an increment of the system.
The project closure phase wraps up the
project, completes required documentation such as system help frames and user
manuals and assesses the lessons learned from the project.
The Scrum process
The Sprint cycle
Sprints are fixed length, normally 24 weeks.
They correspond to the development of a release of the system in XP.
The starting point for planning is the
product backlog, which is the list of work to be done on the project.
The selection phase involves all of the
project team who work with the customer to select the features and
functionality to be developed during the sprint.
Once these are agreed, the team organize
themselves to develop the software. During this stage the team is isolated from
the customer and the organization, with all communications channelled through
the so-called Scrum master.
The role of the Scrum master is to protect
the development team from external distractions.
At the
end of the sprint, the work done is reviewed and presented to stakeholders. The
next sprint cycle then begins.
Teamwork in Scrum
The Scrum master is a facilitator who
arranges daily meetings, tracks the backlog of work to be done, records
decisions, measures progress against the backlog and communicates with
customers and management outside of the team.
The whole team attends short daily meetings
where all team members share information, describe
their progress since the last meeting, problems that have arisen and what is
planned for the following day.
This means that everyone on the team knows
what is going on and, if problems arise, can re-plan short-term work to cope
with them.
Scrum benefits
The product is broken down into a set of
manageable and understandable chunks.
Unstable requirements do not hold up
progress.
The whole team have visibility of everything
and consequently team communication is improved.
Customers see on-time delivery of increments
and gain feedback on how the product works.
Trust between customers and developers is
established and a positive culture is created in which everyone expects the
project to succeed.
Scaling agile methods
Agile methods have proved to be successful for small and medium sized
projects that can be developed by a small co-located team.
It is sometimes argued that the success of these methods comes because
of improved communications which is possible when everyone is working together.
Scaling up agile methods involves changing these to cope with larger,
longer projects where there are multiple development teams, perhaps working in
different locations.
Large systems development
Large systems are usually collections of
separate, communicating systems, where separate teams develop each system.
Frequently, these teams are working in different places, sometimes in different
time zones.
Large systems are brownfield systems, that is they include and interact with a number of
existing systems. Many of the system requirements are concerned with this
interaction and so dont really lend themselves to flexibility and incremental
development.
Where several systems are integrated to
create a system, a significant fraction of the development is concerned with
system configuration rather than original code development.
Large systems and their development processes
are often constrained by external rules and regulations limiting the way that
they can be developed.
Large systems have a long procurement and
development time. It is difficult to maintain coherent teams who know about the
system over that period as, inevitably, people move on to other jobs and
projects.
Large systems usually have a diverse set of
stakeholders. It is practically impossible to involve all of these different
stakeholders in the development process.
Scaling out and scaling up
Scaling up is concerned with using agile
methods for developing large software systems that cannot be developed by a
small team.
Scaling out is concerned with how agile
methods can be introduced across a large organization with many years of
software development experience.
When scaling agile methods it is essential to
maintain agile fundamentals
Flexible planning, frequent system releases,
continuous integration, test-driven development and good team communications.
Scaling up to large
systems
For large systems development, it is not
possible to focus only on the code of the system. You need to do more up-front
design and system documentation
Cross-team communication mechanisms have to
be designed and used. This should involve regular phone and video conferences
between team members and frequent, short electronic meetings where teams update
each other on progress.
Continuous integration, where the whole
system is built every time any developer checks in a change, is practically
impossible. However, it is essential to maintain frequent system builds and
regular releases of the system.
Scaling out to large
companies
Project managers who do not have experience
of agile methods may be reluctant to accept the risk of a new approach.
Large organizations often have quality
procedures and standards that all projects are expected to follow and, because
of their bureaucratic nature, these are likely to be incompatible with agile
methods.
Agile methods seem to work best when team
members have a relatively high skill level. However, within large
organizations, there are likely to be a wide range of skills and abilities.
There may be cultural resistance to agile
methods, especially in those organizations that have a long history of using
conventional systems engineering processes.
Key points
A particular strength of extreme programming
is the development of automated tests before a program feature is created. All
tests must successfully execute when an increment is integrated into a system.
The Scrum method is an agile method that
provides a project management framework. It is centred round a set of sprints,
which are fixed time periods when a system increment is developed.
Scaling agile methods for large systems is
difficult. Large systems need up-front design and some documentation.