Epic Multi-hatting

multihat

The author, multi-hatting as engineering manager and product owner

Multi-hatting is a fact of life in organizations of any size.  As long as you remain aware of what hat you’re wearing at any particular moment, life is good, right?  I’ve said as much myself.

When I talk about knowing what hat you’re wearing, I usually mean it in the sense of knowing whether or not you own the outcome, or are simply a stakeholder in someone else’s outcome.  Sadly, knowing who owns the outcome isn’t enough to do the job well.  Different roles have different outlooks.

A typical multi-hat in many organizations, large and small, is engineering manager and product owner.  Need a product owner for a team? Slap an engineering manager in there – we pay them a lot, they know the product and the team and have a little broader outlook than the troops.  But what happens when they start managing a backlog, in particular writing epics?

In the course of managing backlog – writing stories and epics – I’ve bumped up against the “what is an epic” question a lot, especially when backtracking from story to epic.  I’ll think about the story one way and infer the epic from it, create that epic, then later realize that it fits another epic that looks at the story entirely differently.  An analysis of the epics in question split them into two very clear categories – stuff I write when my head is in the code and stuff I write when my head is in the backlog.

Let’s take a real-life example from the Dog-Food-Diet series.  We want to remotely control multiple 120VAC lights and I wanted to start work on a single story called “turn AC outlet on/off”.  It was not part of an epic.  So I scanned the list of epics, didn’t see the right one and promptly wrote an epic labelled “Controllable power strip”.  Typical engineer-think – leap to the solution and generalize.  That epic describes a thing that we’re not intending to sell – a controllable power strip – rather than the intent we’re trying to accomplish within this product which is to turn lights on and off.

Fortunately, as I discovered later, there was already an epic in the backlog that neatly illustrated the point I’m trying to make here – “Hand-off control of light”.  A totally different perspective on the work.

  • Epic I wrote when my head was in the code – Controllable power strip
  • Epic I wrote when my head was in the backlog – Hands-off control of light

What you see with the first of those epics is my wearing the hat without assuming the perspective.  A “controllable power strip” isn’t an aggregation of business value, it’s a real-world thing that’s kind of like the component that we think we want to build to achieve the business goal of “turning a light on and off”.

The backlog is, first and foremost, an expression of business value.  If the things in it don’t express business value then there’s no obvious sense to the order that you build them in and you’ve lost the point to the backlog.  In other words, do your backlog items describe how you’re going to build it, or why you’re going to build it?

Note on tool use:  If we’re building a controllable power strip to achieve this function it feels weird to not categorize this story as “controllable power strip”.  JIRA offers two ways to capture the knowledge that “how” we’re going to turn lights on and off is through a controllable power strip that we’ll build into the system.  You can use components, or tags.

I chose a tag for this particular example.  We have an Android Things embedded device, an API, a web UI and the physical installation itself at the component level.  If we had a team and a separate backlog for each of these, the power strip might be a component in that backlog.  It doesn’t particularly matter as component and tag are simple attributes in JIRA, not structural features.

There ARE tools that use JIRA’s component field as a structural item.  FeatureMap comes to mind.  It’s a tool that translates back and forth between story maps and backlogs.  I like the product but … it uses the component field to group stories into features.  If you’re already using components for actual components then you’ll probably end up reorganizing things to work with it.  Going back to the Dog-Food product, for instance, and its components, a story map with columns labelled “embedded”, “web UI”, “API” and “physical installation” makes no sense whatsoever.

 

 

About JR
Software guy, startup guy, non-fiction glutton, south shore inhabitant

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: