Skip to main content

Implementing Standard Protocols

I am writing this while waiting for the new version of XCode to download and install on my MacBook. This 3.5G install gives you time to run errands, grab coffee, or in my case - write a blog entry.

I often spend time talking about new APIs with executives and engineering teams. Most of the time executives and engineering managers understand the value of a well-designed interface, but when it comes time to fully supporting some standard you get some resistance. Today I'd like to dissect my experience in trying to convince people to sign up for the work it takes to fully support a standard.

90% of the time an enhancement to the API happens because a customer comes in and has an issue that can't be solved with the current set of interfaces. Features creep in one by one and in general the default behavior is to add just enough to solve the problem at hand. From a cost perspective it also makes sense to avoid building things you don't need right away.

In addition to the internal inertia there is also a school of thought of iterative design, except that iterative design is not such a good thing with the API. Companies that have integrated with you aren't so keen on going back and refactoring that piece of code on your schedule.

Signing up for the work to fully support a standard needs to be broken down into dollars and sense. First supporting a standard rather than adding a couple of features has its costs:
1) Standards have elements you don’t immediately need.
2) Standards take away some flexibility
3) It takes longer
4) Someone needs to read and understand the standard in order to implement it.
What are the benefits? Here are some benefits that go beyond engineering purism:
1) the design time put into a standard doesn’t need to be replicated internally
2) a lot of times there are test kits you can use to do automated testing
3) standard protocol generally have a good deal of documentation which eases the burden on the internal doc team.
4) Helping people implement a solution based on a standard will require less support and professional services involvement.
5) Implementing a good standard is good for developer marketing.

While the time it takes to understand and develop full support of a standard are very obvious costs. The benefits need to be explained. The things that worked best for me are #2 and #5. If you find a test kit and can shave time off the release in the testing department it’s a slam-dunk. If there are some apps or companies that already know how to work with a protocol and because of that are going to integrate with your service – that’s another easy win. Still depending on the cost of supporting a standard you might need to consider all five benefits and put a dollar or time value on those.

Good luck defending standards implementation. Remember – it pays off in the end!
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

SDET / QA Engineer Interview Checklist

After interviewing and hiring hundreds of engineers over the past 12+  years I have come up with a few checklists.  I wanted to share one of those with you so you could conduct comprehensive interviews of QA Engineers for your team.

I use this checklist when I review incoming resumes and during the interview.  It keeps me from missing areas that ensure a good team and technology fit.  I hope you make good use of them.  If you think there are good questions or topics that I have missed - get in touch with me!


SDE/T or QA Engineer interview checklist from Mike Borozdin
If you like this checklist you might want to check out these posts:
Emotional Intelligence in Software Teams  and Good-bye manual tester, hello crowdsourcing!

Hire Fast, Fire Fast? Not so Fast.

Silicon Valley is full of advice and it frequently comes from people who have little experience on the subject matter.  A popular topic surrounds hiring and terminations with the king catch phrase being: “Hire Fast, Fire Fast.”  To me, what that usually means is lack of diligence, thought, communication and courage.

When hiring people love going with their gut feel, often with disastrous results.  There is an obvious subject of diversity of thought, appearance and background.  When thinking “fast” you are probably hiring people like yourself because humans quickly react to people who they believe are in their tribe.

A startup that lacks the resources of a big company often becomes so desperate to get technical staff that when a decent candidate comes along, excitement ensues and the employer doesn't slow down to put them through a more rigorous hiring process.

I highly encourage technical founders and engineering executives to write out their precise hiring process.  Of course, y…

Pull Requests and Code Reviews

Software development involves a great deal of collaboration.  One of the most basic blocks of collaboration on a software development team is a code review.  There have been many different ways of doing code reviews over time, some of this has been dictated by the tools available.  Git and online source collaboration tools created a set of best practices that are worthwhile of adopting on any team.

About a month ago I have looked at various articles about how to best create a Pull Request (PR) and do a code review and the attached presentation is the result of this research.  The presentation can help you guide your team and develop a set of collaboration practices that works for your particular situation.

It’s good to start out with why to seek a code review.  Having clarity about your intentions helps you guide the person helping you with code reviews and also to manage your expectations about you can get out of the code review.  The reasons for seeking a code review are generally …