Skip to main content

Tasking in Software Development

Tasking is core part of XP, Kanban, Scrum and other software development methodologies. It is required when more than one developer is working on a feature. I consider it to be the most wasteful part of the development process as practiced in the mainstream.

Tasking typically involves the team sitting around a machine/desk/whiteboard/projector. From past experience this can take anywhere from an hour up to a day or more. Engagement is often low and this process can be both mentally and physically tiring. During which many assumptions about what should be done is made.

The end result is nothing but index cards, scribbled diagrams or other lightweight documentation. These artifacts are often transformed into digital versions.


The foolish understanding is that now any developer can pick up a task and start work. This leads to dependent tasks being worked on in an independent manner. Team members then find themselves being impeded until a certain piece of code is in place. No amount of swarming or pair programming can help in most cases.

The biggest failure that poor tasking encourages is a task board with numerous items moved to complete, yet the actual functionality is broken and stood no chance of working. In my past experience, this is unfortunately very common.

An equally common scenario is when task cards are stationary for long periods, until they all move across to "done" very suddenly. This is usually a symptom of a unidentified problem or change coming into play.

Ultimately poor tasking results in waste.


Due to the frustrations of experiencing these problems week after week, across numerous teams, I have experimented with a variety of solutions.

Possibly the most controversial and difficult to sell is to have small enough stories and features that mean a single developer/pair can work on. Tasking becomes organic, just part of the day to day work. A simple check list of tasks can suffice here. Both team members stay in sync because the overhead of other team members has been removed. Ultimately you still need to integrate these small(er) features but there are ways to slimline this.

A less dramatic solution is to task in a ad-hoc basis, per story/feature and limit WIP to include tasking. In other words, if you are aiming to deliver three features over several weeks, task the first feature and move onto coding. If during this coding phase you change plans or discover a problem, limited work is lost. Additionally tasking in smaller chunks is better for the teams' morale.

The two other solutions are the most powerful at combating the tasking problem I have described, these are to utilize a Walking Skeleton and try Mob Programming. Both of which will be detailed in future posts.


Popular posts from this blog

Three Steps to Code Quality via TDD

Common complaints and problems that I've both encountered and hear other developers raise when it comes to the practice of Test Driven Development are: Impossible to refactor without all the tests breakingMinor changes require hours of changes to test codeTest setup is huge, slow to write and difficult to understandThe use of test doubles (mocks, stubs and fakes is confusing)Over the next three posts I will demonstrate three easy steps that can resolve the problems above. In turn this will allow developers to gain one of the benefits that TDD promises - the ability to refactor your code mercifully in order to improve code quality.StepsStop Making Everything PublicLimit the Amount of Dependencies you Use A Unit is Not Always a Method or ClassCode quality is a tricky subject and highly subjective, however if you follow the three guidelines above you should have the ability to radically change implementation details and therefore improve code quality when needed.

DRY vs DAMP in Tests

In the previous post I mentioned that duplication in tests is not always bad. Sometimes duplication becomes a problem. Tests can become large or virtually identically excluding a few lines. Changes to these tests can take a while and increase the maintenance overhead. At this point, DRY violations need to be resolved.SolutionsTest HelpersA common solution is to extract common functionality into setup methods or other helper utilities. While this will remove and reduce duplication this can make tests a bit harder to read as the test is now split amongst unrelated components. There is a limit to how useful such extractions can help as each test may need to do something slightly differently.DAMP - Descriptive and Meaningful PhrasesDescriptive and Meaningful Phrases is the alter ego of DRY. DAMP tests often use the builder pattern to construct the System Under Test. This allows calls to be chained in a fluent API style, similar to the Page Object Pattern. Internally the implementation wil…

Coding In the Real World

As a student when confronted with a problem, I would end up coding it and thinking - how do the professionals do this?For some reason I had the impression that once I entered the industry I would find enlightenment. Discovering the one true way to write high quality, professional code.It turns out that code in industry is not too far removed from the code I was writing back when I knew very little.Code in the real world can be:messy or cleanhard or easy to understandsimple or complexeasy or hard to changeor any combination of the aboveVery rarely will you be confronted with a problem that is difficult. Most challenges typically are formed around individuals and processes, rather than day to day coding. Years later I finally have the answer. Code in the real world is not that much different to code we were all writing when we first started out.If I could offer myself some advice back in those early days it would be to follow KISS, YAGNI and DRY religiously. The rest will fall into plac…

Feature Toggles

I'm a fan of regular releasing. My background and experience leads me to release as regularly as possible. There are numerous benefits to regular releases; limited risk, slicker release processes and the ability to change as requirements evolve.The problem with this concept is how can you release when features are not functionally complete?SolutionIf there is still work in progress, one solution to allow frequent releases is to use feature toggles. Feature toggles are simple conditional statements that are either enabled or disabled based on some condition.This simple example shows a feature toggle for an "Edit User" feature. If the boolean condition is false, then we only show the "New User" feature and the "Admin" feature. This boolean value will be provided by various means, usually a configuration file. This means at certain points we can change this value in order to demonstrate the "Edit User" functionality. Our demo environment could …

Reused Abstraction Principle

This is the second part of my series on abstractions.Part 1 - AbstractionsPart 3 - Dependency Elimination PrincipleThe Reused Abstraction Principle is a simple in concept in practice, but oddly rarely followed in typical enterprise development. I myself have been incredibly guilty of this in the past.Most code bases have a 1:1 mapping of interfaces to implementations. Usually this is the sign of TDD or automated testing being applied badly. The majority of these interfaces are wrong. 1:1 mappings between interfaces and implementations is a code smell.Such situations are usually the result of extracting an interface from an implementation, rather than having the client drive behaviour.These interfaces are also often bad abstractions, known as "leaky abstractions". As I've discussed previously, these abstractions tend to offer nothing more than simple indirection.ExampleApply the "rule of three". If there is only ever one implementation, then you don't need …