Tools we used to take our stand-up online

I’ve posted several times on here about team stand-ups (Reinvigorating a daily stand-up by walking the board, Quick fixes to stop ignoring your builds, Be more transparent about your meetings: put them on the board, How we collect team achievements with kudos cards). If you read these posts, you may notice that I’m a big fan of offline techniques: a physical whiteboard, index cards, sticky notes, and, if necessary, print-outs of online content. A certain global pandemic and the ensuing move to remote working made me confront this preference and forced me to find new, online, ways to visualise our work and environment in our stand-ups.

I work for a very Microsoft-centred company, and this influences our choice of tools. I hope that the spirit, if not the detail of these techniques can be easily transferred to whatever tools you have available.

Start with Coffee

We hold our stand-up every day at 11:45. Yes, this was at my instigation, as I’m not a morning person, so I like to run our stand-up at a time when I’m awake and alert. We chose a spot just before lunch (at 12:00!) so it would close off the morning’s work, rather than interrupting anything.

When we were working in the office together, we would often hold our stand-up and then drift off to lunch in small groups. Now we’re remote that’s not possible, so we’ve instituted a team coffee break at 11:30. We open an online meeting and have fifteen minutes of informal chat before we switch over to the day’s stand-up discussions.

When the time comes, I share my screen and we get started on the first discussion point.

Open an online meeting for an informal chat before stand-up.

Web Pages for Everything

I learnt long ago that it’s very easy to forget to discuss anything that’s not immediately visible on your team board. I apply this same principle now we’ve move online.

Whilst physical boards can be configured any way you choose, they only have a finite amount of space. Online sprint boards tend to be somewhat less flexible, but we can compensate for this by creating additional web pages with further discussion points on them.

Create additional web pages for further discussion points.

Use the Widgets

We track our work items in Azure DevOps, and the platform comes with a pretty flexible dashboard system, with a good selection of widgets. You can create whizzy graphs and visualise the status of your Build and Release pipelines.

However, my favourite two widgets are perhaps the most mundane: Markdown and Embedded Web Page.

We use the Markdown widget to add custom text and status messages to many of our dashboards, and I particularly enjoy the way you can create checklists and lists of links to other dashboards.

We use the Embedded Web Page widget for something even more important: a clock! I couldn’t a widget that would allow me to embed a clock on a dashboard, and I find it rather useful to timestamp the page, particularly if we’re going to screenshot it for sharing. To solve this problem, I created an Azure Function that returns a snippet HTML formatted with the same font used on the dashboard, and I embedded it on the page with an Embedded Web Page widget.

If there’s no widget support for what you want, create a web page elsewhere and use the Embedded Web Page widget.

Bookmark Everything

We currently use six separate pages for our stand-up. In Chrome I’ve created a folder in my Bookmark bar for all these tabs (to bookmark several pages at once, type Ctrl + Shift + D), and I can open them all at once by wheel-clicking on the folder.

Our six pages are:

  • Stand-up Overview
  • Team Stories Board
  • DevOps Stories Board
  • Pairing Staircase
  • End-to-End Test Status Dashboard
  • Calendar

Create a folder for all your stand-up pages, so you can open them all at once.

Stand-up Overview

This is the starting and finishing point for our stand-up discussion. It’s implemented as a dashboard with the following sections:

  • A panel with the sprint number, sprint name, and a checklist of our goals. This is implemented as a Markdown widget, and we edit the content as we complete the goals.
  • A date/time clock, implemented as an Embedded Web Page.
  • A panel with links to the other pages we use in our stand-up, and links to personal recognition pages on our company performance system. This is another Markdown widget.
  • A Sprint Overview widget.
  • A Cycle Time widget.
  • A Burndown Chart widget.
  • A Velocity widget.

We often find ourselves looking at the Burndown chart, which gives us a sense of whether our sprint is playing out as we hoped it would, and our Cycle Time chart, which is helpful for assessing our pace and flow of work.

Sometimes simple is best. Use a Markdown widget to track your goals.

Team Stories Board

This page comes the closest to a recognisable team board. We use the Boards feature of Azure DevOps, with some customisations.

  • We set our board to display stories, as this is the level at which we track our work.
  • We don’t filter by sprint, as we use this board to visualise our Product Backlog and Sprint Candidates as well as the items in our current sprint.
  • We use custom styles to indicate which stories are part of this sprint, which are overdue, and which are in our backlog.
  • We use tags and tag styles to give a quick indication of blocked stories (we also link these stories to their blockers).
  • We organise our board into seven columns, just as we did on a physical board:
    • Product Backlog. This corresponds to the New Status.
    • Candidates. A story becomes a candidate when it is refined and pointed.
    • Sprint Backlog. These are the stories chosen at sprint planning, plus any extras.
    • In Development.
    • Ready for Demo. These stories are essentially development-complete, but we demonstrate them to each other before closing them.
    • Done. This is a holding area so we can celebrate the completion of each story at stand-up.
    • Closed.
  • In addition, we split the central five columns into five swim lanes, and use these to track various other types of work:
    • Development contains our standard work items.
    • Meetings and Discussions visualises the many meetings I participate in.
    • Retro Actions
    • Kudos. As we can no longer hand each other kudos cards, we put them on the board.
    • To discuss. This swimlane is a hack. I drop an item in here if there’s something extra I want to discuss at stand-up.

Use swimlanes to visualise non-development work and topics for discussion

DevOps Stories Board

We have a DevOps team and rely on them to provide and configure infrastructure. Many of our stories are dependent on work being done by the DevOps team. We work closely with a member of the DevOps team, and he regularly attends our stand-ups.

Every day we look at the DevOps board, filtered to show only those tasks raised by our team. This gives us a change to check that we’ve provided all the information needed to complete any tasks we’ve raised.

You can filter other teams’ boards to see just those tasks raised by your team.

Pairing Staircase

In the office I would print out a templated pairing staircase for each sprint, and we used a bingo dabber to mark who had paired with whom.

When we moved online, I spruced up the Excel spreadsheet I had made for printing. I added a sum to the right of each person’s initials, and used Conditional Formatting Colour Scales to make it pretty.

A pairing staircase implemented as an Excel Spreadsheet

End-to-End Test Status Dashboard

We’ve written several suites of tests that run typical client journeys against our system. Failures in these tests can indicate instabilities across our ecosystem.

These tests run against each of our environments, and are build using Azure DevOps Release Pipelines, as these make it straightforward to run the same steps against several environments.

We use the Deployment Status widget to show the results of each of these suites of tests, and gather all these widgets on one dashboard, along with a clock (in an Embedded Web Page widget) and a notes panel (in a Markdown widget) to give details of any ongoing investigations and outstanding bugs.

We also send a screenshot of this dashboard to our colleagues every day so they can see how well we’re doing at keeping our environment stable.

Use the Markdown widget to give details of ongoing investigations and outstanding bugs.


Our final page is our team Calendar in Azure DevOps, which automatically shows us our sprint diary. To this we add:

  • Holidays. Whenever I sign off someone’s leave, I add it to this calendar as well.
  • Office closed days and other events.
  • Our weekly build duty rota, which determines who investigates any issues.
  • Days we dedicate to working on our goals.
  • Planned releases.

By discussing this daily, we make sure it’s up to date and there are no nasty surprises.

Check your calendar daily to make sure there are no nasty surprises.

Back to the Overview

We end the stand-up by returning to the Overview dashboard.

Any stores we’ve closed will now be reflected in our charts (after a quick refresh of the page), and we take a moment to update the checklist of our goals.

We put out a final call for any other business, and wish each other a happy continuation of the day.

“Any more for any more? … Happy Wednesday!”

Me, at the end of every stand-up (give or take the name of the day!)

Analysis and Synthesis in Software Production

A dry stone wall

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.

Continuous Integration

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.

Integration Tests

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.