Applying the Switch framework to broken builds

Posted by Marcus Hammarberg on December 22, 2011
Stats

I’m rereading a great book – Switch by the Heath Brothers and it inspires me. The last time I read this book it inspired me to write a post and it’s happening again.

The book is about change, how to accomplish change and especially in situations where you are not in power or control. In short – how to talk to and influence others to understand the need for change and follow through on it.

One very smart thing is that you can download a cheat sheet that contains the ideas in a nutshell – the Switch Framework – for free. Of course it’s not much use if you haven’t read the book, so you better do that first. Could very well be the best book you read.

I thought I would apply the reasoning in the framework to a real life situation and see if I get any ideas on how to get forward. I haven’t implemented this yet but I’ve been reasoning about it with myself and other for quite some time now.

So this is, like many post on this blog, a learning experience for me and I’m sharing it with you. Please supply any feedback to me. I would love to hear your thoughts on the matter.

I’m rereading a great book – Switch by the Heath Brothers and it inspires me. The last time I read this book it inspired me to write a post and it’s happening again.

The book is about change, how to accomplish change and especially in situations where you are not in power or control. In short – how to talk to and influence others to understand the need for change and follow through on it.

One very smart thing is that you can download a cheat sheet that contains the ideas in a nutshell – the Switch Framework – for free. Of course it’s not much use if you haven’t read the book, so you better do that first. Could very well be the best book you read.

I thought I would apply the reasoning in the framework to a real life situation and see if I get any ideas on how to get forward. I haven’t implemented this yet but I’ve been reasoning about it with myself and other for quite some time now.

So this is, like many post on this blog, a learning experience for me and I’m sharing it with you. Please supply any feedback to me. I would love to hear your thoughts on the matter.

The Problem – Broken build indifference

To have continuous integration (CI) for your source control nowadays is almost mandatory. But if I think back it was a very novel thing for many developers just a few years back.

CI

In short CI means that you have an automated way to get the latest source code, compile it, run unit test and integration tests (if present) and then deploy it to an environment for testing. You should run this as often you can, at least daily but it’s not uncommon to do a full build on each check-in.

In my experience it’s one of biggest quality improvers you can add to development process or team. It give you a base line for the current quality of the system and a pulse and a sense of going forward, each check-in makes the system just a little better than before. It’s quality guarantor of the source code checked in. You know that it’s good enough to pass the compile and tests in the build script.

An automated build is a guarantor that the build is done in the same way each time. If you get it to work once it will follow the same procedure each time, which gives you much reliable deployments to all environments (to production for example).

Also it give stakeholders around you a way to get hold of the “latest and greatest” whenever they want.

The catch

There’s only one catch… you need to fix broken builds. In fact you should make that the top priority for the team. Always fix broken builds as soon as they happen. But that is of course boring… and irritating … and sometimes even makes you angry as you might not have been the person that was responsible for the check-in that broke the build.

This is the root to a lot of argumentation and inventions; a blame hat, red blinking lights, monitors that shows you when the build broke and who was responsible etc. etc.

In some teams I’ve been in, people after awhile give up. “This build broke… So what – he has broken the build six times in a row”, “Who cares? Broken build, I’ll fix it with my next check-in next Friday”. And if someone in the team starts reasoning like that it doesn’t take long before others tag along. Before long the build process is often side-stepped and stuff is thrown together and into production in an ad-hoc fashion. It all resembles the broken window syndrome, actually

So, back to the topic of the post, how do you CHANGE this behavior? Well – let’s try out the Switch Framework.

The Switch framework – a short introduction

Hey, I cannot start applying the framework without giving a short introduction. In order to understand it you should know this at least;

The authors have a image of the human psyche that they build a lot of their reasoning on; the image of a Rider on an Elephant (borrowed from Jonathan Haidt). The elephant is our emotion and the rider is our rational side. The rider controls the elephant with some reins from his topside position. The only problem is that if the six-ton elephant wants to go into the bushes to have something to eat … those reins will not help much.

In order to accomplish change you will have to address both the rider and the elephant part of people. The rider need clear instructions while the elephant need motivation and some reasons for why this should be done. Finally you need to shape the path on which they are going to be traveling. The Switch framework gives you some guidelines on how to accomplish that. 

And there… I have now summed up about 4 pages in the book. Read the rest to get the full picture.

Applying Switch to the Broken build indifference problem

So here is my thinking on what you can do to help a team that’s experiencing the problem I described above.

Direct the rider

The rider probably knows that a solid CI is a good thing, most of the developers do. The problem here though is more that we need to put the attention on the broken builds and fix them, which probably is mostly an elephant-problem (of lazyness). So to the “rider” we need to supply information and arguments on why this is good.

Follow the bright spots.

In the book the authors talk about finding situations where the wanted behavior has been a success. People who already are doing this and succeeds with it.

We might find other teams that can talk to our team about the benefits of fixing a broken build right away. Or find situations when that have helped us find stuff that would have ended up being a problem later on.

Script the critical moves

This is putting emphasis on concrete measures that one can take to make it crystal clear and easy to follow. 

In our case that might be a technical solution; for example some tools don’t accept commits or check-ins when the build fails. In Team Foundation Server this is called gated check-ins and simply hinders bad code from entering the system. Mind you that the build we still break… but you will have to fix it before you can continue.

We also need to make sure that everyone understands and can follow the actual build process. With great logging (not too much though) and simplified build scripts that doesn’t tries to do everything. In my experience the build script is often done by one person (and he/she sweats and swears over it). And when it works you “just leave it”.
Maybe we should go through it together and make sure everybody understands what is going on. And even simplify it and the stuff it does. “Does everybody get what happens when we’re running our integration tests”?

Point to the destination

I love this part – it’s like sending a postcard from the future when this have been applied. Look who wonderful stuff is over here. All our problems is just gone. Nice, huh?

Here we can talk about how we can be more responsive and faster in our process. “Due to our rock solid build and deployment process we can now deploy a new version into production, safely, in under 8 minutes. Look ma’. No hands!”

Motivate the elephant

The elephant is all about feeling and getting the emotions on our side. Here are the steps for that.

Find the feeling

This part is about getting a sense of urgency, or feeling that this needs to be fixed. There’s a great example in the book where somebody shows an inventory problem by pouring out all the different gloves that the company is buying on a table. 424 different kinds. That made a feeling of “WOW! How can we go on doing this? This must be fixed!” stick with people seeing the pile of gloves.

For the broken build we could start tracking data on how much time people are spending on untangling bad source code they got when doing a Get. Or how many times outside stakeholders are using a faulty version of our system, or even waiting for us to put another one together.

Make people feel the pain they are inflicting on each other. But here we have to tread carefully and not fall into the blame game, which I think is bad. Jellying and hitting people with treats or humiliations cannot be the answer. But helping them to see that their behavior is hurting others might.

Shrink the change

In this part Switch is asking us to make the first steps easier. Giving us ahead start and a sense of that we’re already are on our way.

In the broken build problem this should not be too hard. We have the process in place. “Some (3/5) builds are working – we just have to try a little harder and we’re almost there”

Grow the people

Here you’re trying to create a team-feel, to get a feeling of belonging and some small peer pressure into the game.

I’ll leave this one with a (tweaked) quote;

“I dream of the day when a broken build is a major thing and a release to production is not”

could be

“On this team a broken build is a major thing and a release to production is not”

Shape the path

Often we think that change is hard because of people, but in reality it’s often the situation and the environment the people are in that is the problem. This part is all about changing the environment to help and support the change.

Tweak the environment

Maybe some simple change in the way we work or the environment we’re acting in can be change to facilitate the change in a big way. A great example of this is the Amazon 1-Click-buy. They simplified their checkout process to be one simple click, which of course resulted in an increase in sales.

I often find that build scripts and the stuff they are doing is very complicated. Maybe we should split the CI build into just doing a compile and running the unit tests. That will leave us in a pretty good state for ensuring that the code quality is good enough to commit into the source repository. We can then have separate build running a couple of times a day, that runs the Integration level test and (if they pass) deploy to a test environment.

This will be much easier to understand and we will get faster builds. The testing environment will still be stable and updated a couple of times a day is still very good.

Build habits

This is about moving your action into the muscle memory, and thereby making them “free”. We do it without thinking about it – reducing the workload of the rider.

A checklist is a very good idea of this. Here you could think of introducing separate steps or checklist on a board that make you go through this. I suggest you read Håkan Forss blog on this matter. It’s a great way to make stuff standard and hence a baseline for quality.

Rally the herd

Here we want to make the behavior contagious so that it’s automatically inflicted on new team members and teams around us. This will help us to grow as well.

I suggest that you make team talk with each other and exchange ideas. Maybe a show-and-tell-session on build automation at the Friday afternoon coffee?

Conclusion

Well – that was a great way of generating ideas and sorting out my tangled mind on the matter.

There are a number of actions that you can take to fight indifference on broken builds. Some are technical and some are just behavioral, just as expected. I haven’t implemented all of these in my current team, but will sure try to start to.

If you read this and think that I have forgotten something or got something wrong – please comment below.



Published by Marcus Hammarberg on Last updated