Skip to main content

XM Principle 2: Object-Oriented, Modular Architecture

In the software industry until the 1980's, programs were developed on a procedural model. This led to extremely complex, unmaintainable solutions. A change to one part of the program usually required changes throughout the program.

This 'tight-coupling' is still pervasive in automotive designs. A change to the suspension requires a change to the chassis, which requires a change to something else, with eventually impacts the design of the entire car.

Today software developers use "information hiding" and object-oriented design patterns to create loosely coupled, highly modular solutions. So you can change for instance the login process without having to modify other parts of your system.

At the X-Prize competition, many of the competitors dropped out. Why? As it became clear that there would be many entrants, the organizers planned to hold a race on city streets to determine the overall winner. This was changed to a coast-to-coast rally, and finally they settled on a race over a very demanding, closed course racetrack. Each acceptance scenario posted very different demands on the suspension. These changes posed huge challenges for teams that could not embrace change rapidly.

The WIKISPEED car is designed as 8 modules, with simple interfaces between the modules. Due to its modular architecture, WIKISPEED was able to switch suspension systems with a minimum of fuss. WIKISPEED has also discovered it can apply related patterns, like inheritance and code reuse, to its advantage.

Embracing change is a core agile value. The ability to adapt rapidly meant WIKISPEED did better in the X-Prize competition than the nearly 100 entrants who dropped out without producing a car.

How do you achieve an object-oriented, modular architecture? The next two principles will help you:
The 10 Principles of Extreme Manufacturing

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Scaling Scrum: SAFe, DAD, or LeSS?

Participants in last week's Scrum MasterClass wanted to evaluate approaches to scaling Scrum and Agile for their large enterprise. So I set out to review the available frameworks. Which one is best for your situation?

Recently a number of approaches have started gaining attention, including the Scaled Agile Framework ("SAFe") by Dean Leffingwell, Disciplined Agile Development (DAD), by Scott Ambler, and Large Scale Scrum (LeSS), by Craig Larman and Bas Vodde. (Follow the links for white papers or overviews of each approach).

How to compare these approaches? My starting point is Scrum in the team. Scrum has proven very effective at helping teams perform, even though it does not directly address the issues surrounding larger organizations and teams. An approach to scaling Scrum should not be inconsistent with Scrum itself.

Scrum implements a small number of principles and constraints: Inspect and Adapt. An interdisciplinary Team solves the problem. Deliver something of va…

Sample Definition of Done

Why does Scrum have a Definition of Done? Simple, everyone involved in the project needs to know and understand what Done means. Furthermore, Done should be really done, as in, 'there is nothing stopping us from earning value with this function, except maybe the go-ahead from the Product Owner. Consider the alternative:
Project Manager: Is this function done?
Developer: Yes
Project Manager: So we can ship it?
Developer: Well, No. It needs to be tested, and I need to write some documentation, but the code works, really. I tested it... (pause) ...on my machine. What's wrong with this exchange? To the developer and to the project manager, "done" means something rather different. To the developer in this case, done means: "I don't have to work on this piece of code any more (unless the tester tells me something is wrong)." The project leader is looking for a statement that the code is ready to ship.

At its most basic level, a definition of Done creates a sh…

10 Warning Signs, that your team is not self-organizing

How do you know that self-organization is working? The Bern Chapter of Scrum Breakfast Club looked into this questions, and identified the following warning signs (which I have taken the liberty of translating).

The team reports to the Scrum Master at the Daily ScrumPeople wait for instructions from the Scrum MasterTeam members don't hold each other responsible [for their commitments]The same impediment comes up twice"That's the way it is" => resignation"I" instead of "We"Flip charts are lonelyCulture of conflict-avoidanceDecisions processes are unclear, nor are they discussedPersonal goals are more important than team goals
To this list I would add my a couple of my favorites:
you don't see a triangle on the task board (not working according prioritization of stories)after the daily Scrum, people return directly to their desks (no collaboration)there are a least as many stories in progress as team members (no pairing)
P.S. You can join the …