Posts

Showing posts with the label enterprise

Rewards and Performance Revisit

I know it's going to sound like I'm trying to talk my boss and yours out of giving us both raises, and of course I'm not, but I keep hearing people tell me they're worried that they can't work in teams because their system pits them against one another. Usually it's an excuse or reason for not pairing. "If I improve my colleague, he will beat me to the incentives" or "if we do his work first, then there's a chance I'll fall behind."  I'm not a fan of individual work assignments , and I'm not a fan of competitive incentives . Rather than rant about it, I'd like to point you to some other authors and how they feel about the topic: Daniel Pink suggests killing your performance ratings . InfoQ balanced comments pro and con individual rewards. Peter Scholtes says reviews are  ineffective, even harmful  and performance appraisal are incompatible . Esther Derby suggests ways to support team-based work  and  performance ...

Really TDD-ing: Less simple than you think

Image
TDD is a pretty simple system, as popularly described.  For an individual doing a kata or playing with some example code it is really just three steps. On card #44 of AgileInAFlash it looks like this: It's the right way to think about TDD, and the right way to get started. When you get to a real project in a team environment you have many other issues to consider.  In a modern team environment, with a DVCS, it looks more like this: Get the current code ( git pull , get clone , hg pull -u , whatever) Run all the tests and be sure they're all really green, to avoid blaming yourself for unrelated breakages. If there are no tests, write a trivial failing test (" assertTrue(false) ") to prove your testing setup (ide, scripts, makefiles) really work. Then delete the trivial test. Write one "real" red test. INSIST ON RED. Write code to turn it green. Local commit "save your game" Refactor (or intentionally choose not to). Check to...