I’ve been thinking about some unproductive discussions I’ve had recently about software production methodologies, discussions where we’ve seemed to be talking across each other, rather than settling on a clear statement of our differences. In cases like this, it’s often the case that we agree on the structure of our arguments, but that there is a fundamental difference in our assumptions or values.
I’ve also been thinking about (apparent) dichotomies, inspired in part by Stephen Jay Gould’s fascinating book, Time’s Arrow, Time’s Cycle: myth and metaphor in the discovery of geological time. In this book he investigates two concepts of time have shaped the science of geology. I write ‘apparent’ in parentheses, as it becomes clear that these concepts are not in opposition, but rather creative tension with each other.
This led me to look at my conversations about software production through the lens of another apparent dichotomy: analysis versus synthesis. As in Gould’s example, I don’t consider these concepts to be in opposition, but rather our decision which of them to emphasise, which to give primacy, has a profound impact on the way we approach software production.
Analysis, ἀνάλυσις, is the breaking (λῦσις, from λύω, to untie, detach) up (ἀνά) of a problem. In software production, this describes taking a set of requirements or a system, and breaking it into smaller pieces, each of which is easier to reason with. This is an essential tool for creating software of any complexity, as reasoning with the entirety of the system is beyond most human abilities.
Synthesis, σύνθεσις, is the putting (θέσις, from τίθημι, to put, place) together (σύν) of a solution. In software production, this describes assembling parts, whether they are method calls, classes, packages or deployable components, into a system. This is an essential tool for creating software of any complexity, as the many moving parts need to interact with each other.
The Analyst Doctrine
There is a school of thought in software production that strongly favours analysis over synthesis. According to this school, software can be successfully produced by analysing the solution into various components, which can then be developed in isolation. Bringing these components back together (synthesis) should be trivial if the analysis has been adequate; if problems arise, then this is a consequence of either inadequate analysis or incorrect implementation.
This doctrine goes hand-in-hand with loosely coordinated development teams. After all, with adequate analysis, the software developers should have all the information they need to write the software, and the interdependencies between the constituent components have been taken care of during the analysis phase. The majority of coordination will be about scheduling, so alert and energetic project management is important.
Testing is focused on the components, ensuring that they conform to their requirements. Where components have dependencies on each other, these can be abstracted away with the use of system mocks, which are straightforward to create, as the contracts have been established.
As combining the components is considered trivial, this can be delayed until development and testing on the individual components has been completed. There can then be a short phase of testing across the entire system to demonstrate that it works as planned, before release to customers.
In my opinion, this is a recipe for disaster. In particular, the system testing phase is rarely trivial, and often takes a dedicated Quality Assurance (QA) team significant amounts of effort, as they find themselves testing all possible routes through the system and uncovering plenty of unexpected behaviour, which is then reported to development teams as bugs.
If the development teams are attempting to work in an ‘Agile’ way and deliver features incrementally, then the work of the project manager becomes even more important, as the delivery of capabilities in the constituent systems needs the be coordinated for each testing phase.
The Synthesist Doctrine
There is also a school of thought in software production that favours synthesis over analysis. According to this school, software can only be successfully produced by bringing together the constituent parts as early and often as possible. This school sees the greatest potential for complexity and uncertainty in the interactions of the components, and seeks to minimise risk by testing the underlying assumptions continuously.
This doctrine goes hand-in-hand with highly networked teams. It is expected that the complexities of the components’ interactions will only become apparent over time, and it is important that these any simplifying assumptions are revised as soon as possible. Scheduling becomes a global rather than local question, and it’s much more important to ensure that requirements evolve and priorities are revisited, rather than focusing on meeting delivery dates.
Testing occurs at all levels, but particular value is given to testing that the entire system works as expected. These tests are the ultimate proof that the customers’ needs have been met and that the software is fit for purpose. Mocks are fundamental practices, but they are most suitable for lower-level tests, and whole-system tests try to exercise all integration points.
As getting the interactions right is prioritised over the detail of the individual components, they may start as broad sketches of the expected behaviour, and complexities and edge cases are added as they become necessary. Indeed, some of the initially desired behaviour may never make it into the final system. As combining the components into a whole system and exercising it with tests happens continuously, there is often no need for a final testing phase.
In my opinion, this methodology gives us the best chance of success.
In the preceding sections I have avoided the word ‘integration’, but I’ve skirted around this issue many times.
We refer to the act of combining any parts of software as integration, to the extent that it’s almost a synonym for ‘synthesis’. (Curiously, the word comes from the Latin ‘integer’, meaning un- (in-) touched (from tango, to touch) and implies unity and atomicity, rather than acknowledging the analysis–synthesis cycle). Whether we leave it to a final phase or do it continuously, all non-trivial software needs to be integrated at some point.
A commonly attempted practice is Continuous Integration (CI). I find it interesting that most discussion of CI focuses on integrating code changes into a central codebase, when the practice also enables us to integrate behavioural changes into a complete system. Needless to say, I believe that the pursuit of CI is a key tool in a synthetic approach to software production.
Ask n developers to define integration tests, and you’ll get n+1 answers. I try to avoid the term altogether, using more specific phrases to capture specific types of test.
I talk about adapter tests, where we test the (ideally very thin) parts of our code that interact with other components and systems. I see these are developer-facing tests, and consider them an important part of a developer’s toolkit.
I’ve seen teams in an Analytic context omit adapter testing altogether, as these tests blur the boundary between an isolated, tightly specified system and the messy outside world. When this happens, a debt of uncertainty is incurred that must be paid off with interest during the integration phase.
I also talk about various types of cross-system and whole-system tests. These can be thought of as integrated tests, as they exercise an integrated system. This is the level at which we prove that the desired behaviour has been implemented, and these are often customer-facing tests, which form an important part of the team’s delivery.
It’s worth observing that integrated tests form part of both approaches, but that the tendency under the analyst doctrine is to do extensive manual testing during an integration phase, whereas under the synthesist doctrine we perform lightweight automated testing after every integration. J.B. Rainsberger argues that Integrated Tests are a Scam, and I have some sympathy for this point, so it’s worth noting that the extensive QA performed under the analyst doctrine fits Rainsberger’s critique much closer than the lightweight whole-system testing of the analyst doctrine.
London and Chicago
It’s interesting to notice in passing that these approaches appear to have parallels in the two styles of Test Driven Development (TDD). London-Style TDD characterises the behaviour of a system in broad brushes in its entirety, and then digs down into the details to write just enough code to implement that behaviour. Chicago-Style TDD (certainly when practised at scale) focuses on evolving well-characterised components, and then assembles them into whole systems. We can see that the London Style responds to Synthetic thinking, whilst the Chicago Style responds to Analytic thinking.
Waterfall versus Agile
The Analytic process I described above looks very much like the delivery pipeline of a Waterfall project. Indeed, the Poppendiecks in their book Lean Software Development characterise the traditional approach to software production as implementing an Analytic mindset, whilst they see a Synthetic mindset in the Lean and Agile ethos of Seeing the Whole, and building entire systems in rapid iterations.
It’s interesting to look at the projects that fall between these two approaches. As I mention above, many organisations maintain an Analytic approach, even though they attempt to introduce Agile concepts by delivering functionality in increments. The tensions created by this mixed approach can lead to more work for project managers as they attempt to coordinate teams’ priorities.
It’s Not All or Nothing
Having said all this, we must remind ourselves that Analysis and Synthesis are not in opposition to each other, but are two sides of the same coin. You cannot reassemble something that hasn’t been broken apart. Even the pure Analytic process includes a phase of synthesis, and even the most radically Synthetic project demands analysis of each increment. What is important is that these two concepts give bias our decisions and working practices, and whereas the Synthetic approach demands frequent small acts of analysis, the Analytic approach puts off synthesis to the final phases. It’s clear to me which approach I find safer.