Or perhaps more accurately, if you’re waiting for your business to allocate time to refactor existing technical debt, you’re doing it wrong say, about 97% of the time.
Having worked numerous shorter-term contract jobs in recent years, I find that the majority of teams are dissatisfied (and I believe rightfully so) with the current state of Technical Debt in their projects. And yet, these teams seem consistently unable to convince their business counterparts to allocate time for refactoring to improve their situation.
Often times, these teams are saddled with mountains of poorly-designed legacy code from which they cannot seem to escape. In spite of the fact that developers working on such projects are painfully aware of the extent to which their big ball of mud is killing their daily productivity, the teams never seem able to convince their business counterparts to allocate them time to correct, or even attempt to improve, the mess.
I believe this usually stems from the difficulty in quantifying software development productivity, which in turn makes a dollars and cents-based justification for software refactoring essentially impossible.
I also believe that we as software developers struggle with some unfortunate stereotypes which, at least on many teams, I have found to be completely inaccurate. While I have encountered the occasional neckbeard stereotype, I have also worked at times on entire teams of well-adjusted, intelligent and good-natured developers, perfectly capable of understanding the need to produce valuable software features consistently, in order to justify their own team’s continued existence.
I have personally found the inability to convince business to allocate development time toward refactoring particularly frustrating given that my whole intent is to be able to produce software that is of value in the most rapid, efficient manner possible, while also ensuring the correctness of that code (for which my primary techniques are 1) automated testing and 2) maximally leveraging static type checking). As Robert Martin would say, “The only way to go fast is to go well.”
The ‘Providing Business people with 100% of the Information They Need to Make What is Essentially a Technical Decision About Which They Know Nothing so that They Can Make the Decision Themselves’ Anti-Practice
Have you ever found yourself in this situation: Some business person at your company is involved with technical decision making, and at some point you realize that you’re having to provide 100% of the information that person needs to make a decision? In the worst cases, the correct decision might be completely obvious to any software developer, and yet the business person might head off in some nonsensical direction, and so you have to provide even more and more justification to convince the business person to do the right thing.
Why is this person involved in decision making at this level in the first place? This is a tell-tale sign that the business person is being involved in decision making at the wrong level.
If a plumber were repair a water pipe in your house, and that plumber were to continually ask you about what types of material to use for welding pipe joints, about how much weld to add to each pipe joint, what would your response be? You would probably respond that plumber should just apply his/her expertise to ensure that the pipe gets repaired correctly, and to ensure that the water keeps flowing. Involving you, the client, about the nuances of pipe welding would simply be involving you at the wrong level of abstraction, so to speak.
Such is often the case with refactoring technical debt. As has been pointed out elsewhere, software developers can easily fall into the trap of thinking that refactoring should be some large scale effort in which time is taken away from producing valuable feature work to “clean house,” but as Erik points out in his block post, even the filthiest of home owners probably shouldn’t take weeks off from their day jobs to clean up their squalor. Rather, such cleaning should be done incrementally, a few hours per evening, and perhaps those small incremental efforts should be ongoing and never necessarily ending.
Granted, this suggestion implies a certain level of refactoring expertise on the part of each developer on the team. Comprehending large-scale changes that need to be made to an architecture, but applied in an incremental manner (a la Martin Fowler’s book on refactoring), is a skill that can take some time to develop. But there’s nothing to do but try. Expecting the business to allocate time for large “time out” refactorings is a strategy almost certain to fail.
Sometimes teams do convince business to allocate large time out-style refactorings, but these efforts can go badly for the same reason that integrating large modules towards the end of Waterfall-style projects can go badly. I once worked with a team which, prior to the first release of their product, convinced the business to allow them to take a ~ 1-year long timeout to reengineer the project’s architecture, only to discover toward the end of that year that the reengineering was based on some substantially harmful decisions. Ouch! It’s almost always better to work incrementally.
Working incrementally can add quite a bit of cognitive overhead to day-to-day feature work. I know personally, for the first few years of my career, banging out new code or fixing bugs right where my cursor happened to be was about all that I could handle. But over time, common refactoring patterns can become second nature, making it quite feasible to mentally hold your day-to-day feature work, while simultaneously considering an undesirable old architecture you wish to be moving away from, as well as a new architecture to work towards.
Aggressively refactoring every day is not ‘going rogue’
Some might argue “secretly” refactoring, as a part of one’s day-to-day work, might run counter to the Agile philosophy of openness. I would counter that this refactoring would be “secret” in the same sense that you’re “secretly” choosing to make any particular method public or private, virtual or abstract, without involving a business person in that decision. This is simply not the level of in-depth technical decision making at which business people need to be operating.
In case anyone might still be put off by this notion of refactoring, even at a very granular scale, without involving business in the decision, let me offer a counter-perspective. I would willingly encourage any business for which I work to continue judging me, or my software team, by my/our continued feature-based work output. This provides the added benefit that I/we had better be damn sure we’re not just gold-plating the code, refactoring according to personal style preferences, or anything else that does not improve the long-term viability of the project.
At any point at which a refactoring effort might lend itself to a quantifiable business justification, consider involving the business. Suppose that your car mechanic tells you he can replace your water pump for $50 in parts plus $500 in labor, but while he has your engine disassembled he can replace your timing belt for another $50 in parts, with no added labor cost. Scenarios in software development tend to be less measurable so I struggle to envision (or to recall) a comparable situation, but I’m certain that it’s possible.
If I were to come a bit closer to tooting my own profession’s horn, I might argue that, while software developers certainly possess at least some ability to appreciate the importance of regularly producing valuable feature work, business stakeholders do not typically possess much, and often not any, ability to understand the impact that crippling Technical Debt can have on a team’s productivity. From a technical perspective, your typical software developer might much better understand what is necessary to ensure the long-term technical viability of the project.
Might it be possible that by involving the business with technical debt decisions, that we are involving them at the entirely wrong level of decision-making? The wrong level of abstraction? Might development teams be better off positioning themselves as feature brokers, who handle issues of technical debt internally, leaving the business to judge the team based only on their output of customer-facing features? I believe this is indeed most often the case. If you’re waiting for your business to allocate time for you to improve upon code that “already works,” odds are you’ll be waiting forever. What is your move going to be?