Return of the mini

Apple vs Microsoft, Mac OS vs Windows, Mac vs.... what? Well, pretty much any appropriate collection of components, actually. 

Whereas Apple have always been able to write their software knowing the target hardware quite precisely, Windows runs on what is, too all intents and purposes, an infinite variety of machines. 

But Microsoft has always been lousy at promoting its real strengths. I mean, they don't write their adverts, they buy a company in to do it for them, yet their campaigns are still rubbish compared with Apple's. Just look their (slightly unsettling) "we built a shop in your front room" advert compared with Apple's well-written "I'm a Mac"/"And I'm a PC" campaign. (Amusing enough to distract anyone from mentioning Apple's underlying assumption that being short-sighted, overweight and middle-aged were all attributes that made you uncool.)

I don't think I've ever thought Microsoft was a wonderful company but in the face of the Apple Fanboys' evangelism I've often found myself provoked into arguing its case against Apple's. That hasn't stopped me buying Apple products: I *love* my iPod, although I wouldn't buy another iPhone, having fallen once for Apple's assumption that their consumers will upgrade their hardware to keep up with their amazing software developments (and I DON'T mean that sarcastically). 

Indeed, I was amazed when less than a year after releasing the first iPhone, Apple had the effrontery to market the second model as "The iPhone you've been waiting for". (Cue Apple Fanboys everywhere: "This is the 'phone I've been waiting for. These are not the 'droids we're looking for.")

And then Windows 8. 

I don't like it. At first I thought I just needed to adapt to the new interface but, months on, I really find it irritating still. So, I've bought a Mac Mini, which I'm going to trial at home first, and today I unpacked it. I love an "unboxing" and it has to be said that Apple's packaging is another area in which they seem to operate with unfailing style. 

Actually, I ran a Mac Mini at home a few years ago but the operating system has moved on considerably since then: I understand that I am now running 'Mavericks' (which I think I'd feel a bit awkward saying out loud). I must say I'm enjoying it so far but I always enjoy setting things up (even Ubuntu!). But, to be honest, my only real reservation is the Apple crowd thinking they've 'won'. Hey, I'm am MAD about Office365 :-)

What makes a good developer?

Quite often when I talk to people about IT development, how projects should be run in order for them to be successful, I use building as an analogy. Let's say you wanted an extension on your house or even a new house. First of all, you'd have to have a think about what you wanted and then you'd probably talk to an architect. The architect will listen to your requirements, perhaps set you straight on a couple of ideas and possibly make a couple of suggestions of her or his own. This is analogous to the stage of an IT project when we first engage with a client and make our proposal.

At some point more detailed plans are required - showing, perhaps, where the outflow pipe from your jacuzzi will run - and this is equivalent to our systems design, the specification that is written by a systems analyst. This stage of the process, which I wrote about a few months ago, is critical to the success of the project. It details our understanding of what the client has requested and we won't start work until that document has been signed off.

So far, so good. We've reached this stage by talking to the client, starting in broad conceptual terms, then getting into more detail and ultimately documenting the project to the point where they can say "Yes, that is exactly what I want. Build it!" On our side, we will have worked out precisely what's involved so that we can give an accurate quote for the work and, crucially, plan the work into our schedules so that we can tell our client precisely when the work will be delivered. It is this process that is a key part in making good on our promise to deliver IT systems on time, on budget and to spec.

It is at this point, then, that the developer gets involved and, if you're not careful, this is where it can all go horribly wrong. You see, being a good developer is about so much more than being able to write code. In fact, in some ways, that's the most trivial part. When we interview for developers at Meantime, we assume they can write code or why else would they be coming for a job with us? (Which isn't to say that they don't get a thorough technical interview from Steve!) The qualities that we're looking for before we employ someone are a little harder to pin down. But I've been in IT for 25 years now and I have met an enormous number of developers, and in this post I'm going to detail some of the things that I think contribute to making a good developer.

One of the most important qualities is sense of place within both the team and the business. One of the worst developers I've ever worked with described himself, without irony, as "the talent". A good developer recognises that he or she is part of the project lifecycle. They appreciate the work that has taken place before a project reached their desk and also respect that work. A developer who thinks they know better than their colleagues or even the client, is not going to deliver what has been promised to the client.

And this sense of place should come from having empathy, which in turn should lead to some serious consideration about what the end users' experience of the software will be. Using good software should be like reading a good book; you should be barely aware that you're doing it. It should be intuitive and responsive. In fact, it is this consideration that has made Apple's products so successful over the years and which is the major flaw with Windows 8. A good developer will put himself in the users' shoes, thinking how will they know what to do, how can I help them through the process and how will I let them know when they've finished? As I've said elsewhere on this blog, the user interface is 5% of what the developer does but 100% of what the user sees.

A good developer will also be a team player. That's a hackneyed term, I know, but it's a useful one. In many ways this is an extension of my first point but a good developer will work well in a team in several respects. Their code will be well laid out and well commented in order to assist any developer who comes to amend it later on. They will respect the change control process, such that their work doesn't overwrite anyone else's - so this is that sense of place, again - and they will understand where they fit into a project, respecting what their colleagues are doing. A good developer will be happy to share knowledge and enjoy teaching. (Conversely, a bad developer won't share information.) A good developer will also take feedback - whether it's from the testing team or from the client - in a constructive way, understanding that it is a contribution to the process.

So that sense of being a team player also extends out to the people in the company who aren't developers and out to the client too, because any project is a team effort that involves the client. I'm always warmed listening to Meantime developers talking to clients, being friendly and helpful. And that sense of being a team player also manifests itself in making the brews!

Perhaps one of the more specific characteristics that I believe goes to make a good developer is finishing. That sounds a bit odd but you'd be amazed how many developers don't finish. I think this comes sometimes from not being clear about what they're required to do (which is why a good spec is required) or perhaps just because they can't stop tinkering! Over the years I've seen many a developer convince themselves that they have nearly finished a piece of work, only for it to run on and on. And these developers also seem to end up with more bugs being raised against their work. An understanding of what a piece of work consists of is essential to being able to plan it and also to knowing when it's done.

This list may not be exhaustive, but there is only one final pair of characteristics I want to mention: enthusiasm and enjoyment, and I think these are probably two sides of the same coin. I can think of countless times over the years when our technical director Steve has shown me a piece of work that he's pleased with and even this month he has surprised me with a beautiful little piece of a user interface. Simply beautiful. Readers of our newsletter and our followers on Twitter will be aware of Paul's brilliant work in turning a Raspberry Pi into our office Jukebox. You might think that building web pages is just about laying elements out on a page but, in addition to being a great designer, Lou soaks up HTML5, CSS3, W3C compliance and DDA with an appetite that never fails to impress me. The evidence is there in the tens of thousands of lines of code that Danny has written for one of our largest projects and, most rewardingly for me, in the stunning progress that our junior developer, Jack, has made: he's now working on live projects and that's months ahead of what I expected.

There are other people who make a huge contribution to Meantime's success, none of whom I would be without, but this post is about the developers and, as I think you can probably tell, I'm delighted by the team that we have. A bad developer is like a bad builder; they leave you with disappointing results that can cause you problems for a long time after the job should have been finished. It may be obvious to say that to have a successful IT project you need good developers but there is a further point here: you need a good team. This is why I'm strongly against outsourcing and off-shoring because that team should include the client, too. Recently, the sponsors of a project we're doing at Heathrow asked whether the developers on the project would like to come down to visit. More than anything else, that told me that Meantime has great developers who do a lot more for the business than just writing code.

Banking on failure

Over ten years ago I was working for a Major Retail Bank (MRB) and I was responsible for testing their first fully online Internet banking application. I had two teams of around twenty people, one in London for a sister bank and one at head office in what, at times, felt like the Arctic circle.

We had cabinet upon cabinet of manually completed test scripts as well as automated text tools checking the less popular browsers. In each location I had two or three test coordinators running the teams on an operational basis and I had an excellent boss, Cameron Mealyou, supporting me strategically. With all this in place, we delivered very high quality testing and the live launch went without a hitch.

A short time later, a minor amendment was required to the software, effectively a change to some help text. Perhaps on another, lower profiled project I might have agreed to some localised testing but this was an Internet banking system; we couldn't afford a single incident to undermine customer confidence. Thus, I proposed a full regression test, employing the full test team for a week, thereby causing a week's slippage to the delivery of the next release.

This suggestion proved to be unpopular with the programme manager and matters became heated. Having stated my case once I couldn't see the point in labouring the point, so I told the PM he was welcome to over-rule me but that I wouldn't sign off the change as tested. I think it was pretty clear that overruling me would have made my position untenable and he reluctantly agreed to the test.

The testing produced three significant bugs.

When the bugs had been corrected and the release was live, I was in the pub with the development manager, I nice chap called Neil. After a couple a beers, he said to me "You couldn't possibly have known those bugs were there." Which is an odd thing to say, isn't it? We don't test because we know there are bugs, we test in case there are (although that is usually the case).

A few months later I moved on to a new contract. I was told the test teams would be wound down "because we never have any bugs in the live environment." This is like saying "I think I'll stop exercising because I never have any problems with my fitness"!

I've been reminded of this a few times recently when I've encountered problems with my bank's banking software and also because of the high profile issues that have been reported in the press. These problems point - undeniably - to a lack of testing.

And it's not that testing is particularly complicated. It's mostly a combination of common sense, rigour and a conscientious approach (rather well suited to those who are a little OCD). It is, however, pretty expensive: there's a lot of preparation involved and the process itself is time-consuming. On many occasions I saw a project manager attempt to cut testing time in order to hit a deadline and this is a classic reason for bug-ridden live releases.

So, my message to the banks is: stop scrimping on the testing and support your test managers.