Skip to main content

Why Releasing More Frequently is Good For You

So I was thinking a bit about frequent releases. There are many agile books and articles that explain how more frequent releases are a good thing. However, to many people in management, this is counter-intuitive. They say "Slow means safe. Slowing down means more time to improve quality, more time to test, and more time to fix bugs. Also slow is cheaper, because it's less overhead costs." I've seen a lot of projects where release frequency slows down, especially after the initial development burst and launch of a product, and I think this is a shame.

So how do I go about explaining people that the slow-means-safe line of thought is wrong?

I've come up with a little model I'd like to go through here.

I start off with defining a Rate of Development, which we'll assume is constant throughout the model (leaving out factors as motivation and skill).

Now, having a high rate of development is not worth anything if we're not Doing the Right Thing. This symbolizes working in the right direction, and our Performance ultimately is decided by Doing the Right Thing at our Rate of Development. Performance represents the long term success of our organization.

So so far we've got RoD x DtRT => Performance





Now we won't pick at the RoD in this model (assumed to be constant), but rather look at DtRT: Doing the Right Thing encompasses all the hundred little decisions we make every day, from whether or not we should rename this method, which OS we choose on our servers, to which feature we choose to develop. So what tells us what is the right thing to do? Answer: Feedback.

Feedback => DtRT


Feedback comes from customer (support, sales, social media), developers (retrospectives, standups), monitoring metrics and logs on the product, doing user experience testing, market response and stuff like that. This feedback gives us the intelligence we need to Do the Right Thing.

How can we increase Feedback? Answer: With more Frequent Releases. This is fairly intuitive, releasing more frequently will increase the mass of Feedback in most channels.

Frequent Releases => Feedback


At this point traditional management will cross their arms and say hold on, it's not that easy: We can't risk releasing more often, it's too dangerous. So, let us consider Safety as a parameter for that.

Safety => Frequent Releases


Safety means no nasty bugs or deployment botches. The problem with management is that they mix up what is the cause of the effect here. They see Frequent Releases as a driver for Safety going down, while in reality it is on the other side the factors lie.

So let's dig a bit deeper and see what leads to Safety. Here are the typical factors:

  • Tests (automated tests, unit-, integration-, as well as manual testing where necessary)
  • Good Code (fewer unexpected side-effects from making changes)
  • Small Feature Set
The first two there are fairly obvious. The last one is a pill management has a hard time swallowing: 

Releasing a Smaller Feature Set means more safety, because there are fewer features to figure out, develop, and to test in parallel. Fewer moving parts that can malfunction, so to speak.

Now the model is complete. Have a look at the complete thing:



(You can also draw a line from Doing the Right Thing leading back up to the factors increasing Safety.) 

Typical objections from management that object to this model (exercise for the reader: are these fallacies or not?):
  • Doing the Right Thing is better decided by planning/strategy/architecture, than by Feedback.
  • Safety increases linearly with QA: 10 times as many features is just as well tested by 10 times the QA.
  • Good Code is irrelevant to Safety. (Refactoring is actually regarded as a minus to safety in some places).
While Frequent Releases are the result of Safety and the drivers behind it, traditional management unfortunately sees it as a lever they can turn down to increase safety. 

So, I'm not sure if the model will be of any help to you. For me it's just a nice way to explain the benefits of frequent releases to non-developers. 

Comments

  1. Also releasing frequently minimizes the stress of deployment, because to be able to release (and deploy) often, you need good automation and a clean process, which is well understood by doing it on a regular basis instead of once a quarter or worse.

    ReplyDelete
  2. @Patrick: Thanks for the comment! Good point. There could be another bubble above Safety called Process or Routines that apply to the stability of doing releases. Releasing frequently feeds directly back there, like you say.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Great thoughts. Somewhat reminds me to the influence diagrams found at the end of Kent Beck's good old TDD book.
    It looked something like more frequent tests -> more _confidence_ -> productivity.

    This looks the same, more fundamental principle ('test' generalised as 'feedback'). Apart from the link mentioned above (frequent releases forces you to automate things better, which in turn is a positive feedback loop on both frequent releases and performance directly), it seems to help eliminate the other hindrance against itself. That is, I found a common reason for not making a release is lack of confidence in stability/code maturity - which this loop helps with: frequent feedback -> confidence -> performance.

    ReplyDelete
  4. @Gin: Thanks for commenting! My thoughts are very influenced by Beck, so that figures :)

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Open source CMS evaluations

I have now seen three more or less serious open source CMS reviews. First guy to hit the field was Matt Raible ( 1 2 3 4 ), ending up with Drupal , Joomla , Magnolia , OpenCms and MeshCMS being runner-ups. Then there is OpenAdvantage that tries out a handful ( Drupal , Exponent CMS , Lenya , Mambo , and Silva ), including Plone which they use for their own site (funny/annoying that the entire site has no RSS-feeds, nor is it possible to comment on the articles), following Matt's approach by exluding many CMS that seem not to fit the criteria. It is somewhat strange that OpenAdvantage cuts away Magnolia because it "Requires J2EE server; difficult to install and configure; more of a framework than CMS", and proceed to include Apache Lenya in the full evaluation. Magnolia does not require a J2EE server. It runs on Tomcat just like Lenya does (maybe it's an idea to bundle Magnolia with Jetty to make it seem more lightweight). I'm still sure that OpenAdvant

Managing dot-files with vcsh and myrepos

Say I want to get my dot-files out on a new computer. Here's what I do: # install vcsh & myrepos via apt/brew/etc vcsh clone https://github.com/tfnico/config-mr.git mr mr update Done! All dot-files are ready to use and in place. No deploy command, no linking up symlinks to the files . No checking/out in my entire home directory as a Git repository. Yet, all my dot-files are neatly kept in fine-grained repositories, and any changes I make are immediately ready to be committed: config-atom.git     -> ~/.atom/* config-mr.git     -> ~/.mrconfig     -> ~/.config/mr/* config-tmuxinator.git       -> ~/.tmuxinator/* config-vim.git     -> ~/.vimrc     -> ~/.vim/* config-bin.git        -> ~/bin/* config-git.git               -> ~/.gitconfig config-tmux.git       -> ~/.tmux.conf     config-zsh.git     -> ~/.zshrc How can this be? The key here is to use vcsh to keep track of your dot-files, and its partner myrepos/mr for o

Leaving eyeo

Thirteen blog posts later, this one notes my departure from eyeo after 4 years and 3 months. I joined eyeo around the headcount of 80 employees, and now I think there's just over 250 people there. My role coming in was as operations manager, doing a mix of infrastructure engineering and technical project management. I later on took on organizational development to help the company deal with its growing pains . We introduced cross-functional teams, departments (kind of like guilds), new leadership structures, goal-setting frameworks, onboarding processes and career frameworks.  And all of this in a rapidly growing distributed company. I'm proud and happy that for a long time I knew every employee by name and got to meet every single new-hire through training them on company structure and processes.  At some point, we had enough experienced leaders and organizational developers that I could zoom back in on working in one team, consulting them on  Git and continuous integration

Git Stash Blooper (Could not restore untracked files from stash)

The other day I accidentally did a git stash -a , which means it stashes *everything*, including ignored output files (target, build, classes, etc). Ooooops.. What I meant to do was git stash -u , meaning stash modifications plus untracked new files. Anyhows, I ended up with a big fat stash I couldn't get back out. Each time I tried, I got something like this: .../target/temp/dozer.jar already exists, no checkout .../target/temp/core.jar already exists, no checkout .../target/temp/joda-time.jar already exists, no checkout .../target/foo.war already exists, no checkout Could not restore untracked files from stash No matter how I tried checking out different revisions (like the one where I actually made the stash), or using --force, I got the same error. Now these were one of those "keep cool for a second, there's a git way to fix this"situation. I figured: A stash is basically a commit. If we look at my recent commits using   git log --graph --

Using Voice-Chat for Gamers in Distributed Teams

This is a post going into the usefulness of live voice-chat tools in distributed teams. If you've ever seen the Leeeeeroooooyy Jeeeenkiiins video of World of Warcraft fame, you've heard this kind of tool in action. It's how the participants in the video are speaking with each other - this is not a feature built into the World of Warcraft game - it's a separate team-oriented VoIP software, and it's all about letting gamers communicate orally while gaming.  Since these tools are for gamers, they have to be fast (low latency) light (as not to steal CPU-cycles from heavy games graphics)  moderate in bandwidth usage (as not to affect the game server connection) There are several options around: TeamSpeak , Ventrilo , more recently the massively grown Discord , and finally Mumble , which is the open-source alternative of the gang. A few years ago, when I joined eyeo (a distributed company), several of the operations team were avid gamers, and had a TeamSp