Andy's Mind

I’ve just read yet again on some blog someone complaining that agile teams don’t document what they do, producing unmanageable, messy code. Not true, agile developers do create documentation. The difference is that they don’t fetishize it. By that I mean that documentation (models, descriptions, etc.) are seen for what they really are – mere tools, a scaffolding for the real product which is the working code. It’s same about other things – like modeling, analysis, design, testing etc. – all that is by no means cast aside by agile practices. It is just applied differently (for example testing not of the whole product in the end, but at every step) and never mistook for the real deliverable.

I suspect this superstition that “agile don’t document” persists because of some teams that think “agile” means return to “good old days” of cheerful coding without designing testing etc. This is just poor engineering, not “agile”.

Yesterday I proposed and got the “YES”. So, I’m now engaged. I’m very happy – in fact I’m happier than I expected to be.

We both are.

I’ve been into web applications for some time now. First I used them, then I proposed them as solutions in some consulting projects then I got involved as development team manager in creating one (a billing/CRM system). But only now it occurred to me that ubiquitous Internet access and popularity of web applications are interlocked in a self-powering cycle.

As Internet access is more and more popular people start to use web applications more. As they use them they are more dependent on Internet access and thus demand it everywhere. One could extrapolate that once Internet access is available always and everywhere web applications will also dominate. And, conversely, if people indeed use web apps more they would need Internet access always and everywhere to keep using them.

It is interesting to see how the idea of Internet expressed in its name – the net to connect all nets – persists despite some trying to change it. This has profound implications for businesses trying to operate in this virtual world. Two clean and clear strategies can be seen – one is of an access provider and the other is one of an application/content provider. Those two species in the Internet ecosystem are dependent on each other, but they are distinctly different.

For an application/content provider the best idea is to reach as wide an audience as possible – potentially all Internet users (limited only by the languages they use) – with a clearly defined, appealing application set or content offering. Traffic means all to such businesses – no matter if they live off advertising or paid subscription. The more eyeballs you get to your web page the more money you make, period. Hence, limiting access or availability to a particular ISP or network is a bad idea, because no operator can match the number of potential users the Internet gives.

Conversely, for an ISP an opposite strategy is better. Such a business should focus on destination agnostic access. ISPs sell an easily-comparable commodity of access to all the Internet has to offer with only three simple dimensions of quality: price, reliability and speed. For them keeping a customer as long as possible and getting as many of them as possible per real meagbit of bandwidth is crucial. And to do that one has to stick to the basics – no amount of gimmicks, applications or exclusive content will ever help if the access is slow, pricey and breaks up all the time. It is so because no operator can match the amount and quality of applications and content available on the wide open Internet.

That’s why it is so rare these days to see people using e-mail addresses provided by their broadband operators. And why almost everyone uses some kind of webmail.

It is not easy to spot the moment when an organization looses its focus. But it is surprisingly obvious once it dawns on you. It can be likened to a knife loosing its sharpness. It is hard to spot the exact moment, but it is obvious once it stops to cut as it once did.

But putting allegories aside – in a startup I think it is the moment when it is not obvious anymore to everyone what their collective purpose it. It is the moment when business looses touch with reality and forgets about the basic product or service it provides turning its attention in a disproportional way to add-ons. It is the moment when the internal communication fails and the management team ceases to be just that – a team.

As I wrote already: communication is a crucial element here. In a startup it is, I think, always good at the beginning, when it is a small group of founders and first hires. Once a company develops past certain size – and especially if it becomes spread geographically – a dedicated, careful effort is necessary to prevent it from deteriorating.

Lack of this effort can be dangerous.