Grouplet Playbook

Education and Advocacy

Models and strategies for driving adoption of best practices throughout a development culture.

Abandon Data and Absolute Reason

Best practices are often more about avoiding visible impact than producing it. Such negative impact is practically impossible to prove. Hence, when it comes to driving adoption of best practices in general, experience is the most effective form of persuasion.

Given the distribution of the diffusion of innovations model, it is inevitable that some will attempt to thwart your efforts to promote certain practices by demanding data proving its effectiveness. Disregard those who protest in this way; a demand for data proving the effectiveness of automated testing is cowardice masquerading as reason.

Alternatively, turn the argument around: Ask for the data that conclusively made the case for using programming language X, or text editor Y, or hosting platform Z.

Everything Is Not for Everyone

Taking Test-Driven Development as an example, the end result is well-tested code; TDD is not the only means to get there. The goal is to promote best practices that people perceive as having value based on their own experience, not on the basis of coersion or academic purity.

Crossing the Chasm

Geoffrey A. Moore’s book Crossing the Chasm first explains the different segments of the Bell curve-shaped diffusion of innovations model:

Diffusion of Innovations and the Chasm
Image by Catherine Laplace based on other illustrations of the “Crossing the Chasm” model.

  • Innovators and Early Adopters: Partners-in-Crime; believe in principle; help each other clarify concepts, principles, priorities
  • Early Majority: persuaded by results, reason, positive experience
  • Late Majority: persuaded by common practice, lack of friction
  • Laggards: abandon them; they are useless, dead weight

The Innovators and Early Adopters comprise the “Instigators”. It is their responsibility to cross the “chasm” identified by Moore as the gap between the Early Adopters and the Early Majority. Crossing the Chasm is what determines the success or failure of an initiative, as crossing it is necessary to achieve widespread adoption.

The Chasm

Using automated testing adoption as an example, the “chasm” may be characterized as:

  • Slow and/or incorrect builds
  • Ignorance of principles, techniques, and idioms
  • Poor management and development culture

The chasm is best crossed via persuasion, not force (laggards notwithstanding). Albert Wong’s “Rainbow of Death” model from “Large Scale Development Culture Change: Google and the US Government” describes a progression of activities Instigators must undertake to lead the Early Majority across the chasm.

Crossing the Chasm via the Rainbow of Death
Close-up of Crossing the Chasm via the Rainbow of Death
Images by Catherine Laplace based on other illustrations of the “Crossing the Chasm” model and Albert Wong’s framework image.

Fulfilling each step is necessary to producing lasting, positive change. By moving from one step to the next (conceptually; in reality many efforts must happen in parallel), the Early Majority is transformed from “Dependent” upon the Instigators to “Independent”:

  • Intervene: Instigators do the work
  • Validate: Instigators validate the efforts of the Early Majority
  • Inform: Instigators provide technical information and training to the Early Majority
  • Inspire: Instigators motivate the Early Majority and help them feel that their work is valuable
  • Mentor: Instigators build strong relationships with Early Majority members
  • Empower: Early Majority members are able to do the work, with ongoing support from Instigators

“Poor Quality” Code Not an Issue

“Poor quality” code is not part of the chasm. It is a symptom, not a cause. Spread ideas and remove obstacles, and the code will improve.

Case Study: Google’s Testing Grouplet

Google's Testing Grouplet was a team of volunteers pooling their 20% time to drive adoption of automated developer testing, in the most serious and fun ways possible. Some of the more significant efforts included:

  • Test Certified: a concrete roadmap towards sound automated testing.
  • Testing on the Toilet: a weekly, one-page flyer published in restrooms company-wide to introduce testing concepts and tool developments. Started in 2006 and still running today (January 2015), it proved a fantastic, distributed volunteer task. It started and standardized conversations, both inside and outside the Testing Grouplet, avoiding the echo chamber effect.
  • Test Mercenaries: hands-on internal consultants that helped teams move up the Test Certified ladder. They also both informed internal tool development and drove company-wide tool adoption.
  • Fixits: limited-time, all-out efforts to address “important but not urgent” tasks and roll out new tools. Fixits built momentum and morale, and the focused effort overcame huge obstacles, setting the stage for future developments.

This is how these efforts and a few others fit into the "Rainbow of Death" model:

The Google Testing Grouplet's Rainbow of Death
Derived from Albert Wong’s original framework slide from a Google-internal tech talk.

Seize the Teachable Moments!

“goto fail” and Heartbleed were prime examples of why unit testing is so critical. Both bugs were unit-testable, as proven by the working code in the “Finding More Than One Worm in the Apple” and “Goto Fail, Heartbleed, and Unit Testing Culture” articles.

When such opportunities to demonstrate the importance of best practices arise, we can seize the chance to publish articles, give presentations, and refer to existing works. Such activities build a body of knowledge and give our arguments scholarly weight.

When making our arguments, it’s important to emphasize “why” we follow a practice as well as “how”. The “why” may be obvious to the Instigators who already “get it”, but not necessarily to everyone.

Play the Long Game

Lasting change never comes quickly. Eschew authoritah; you know telling programmers “do as I say” is a recipe for disaster!

Understand that the problem isn’t purely technical, and it isn’t just about the value of a particular practice: it’s about the “chasm”. Hearts and minds must be persuaded (Early Majority), won (Late Majority), or conquered (laggards).