Stories with Tag Business Value

• Reasons Not to Refactor

  permalink

  Posted: 2025-02-04 04:57:26

  Verbose tl;dr

  Refactoring, while often beneficial, should not be undertaken without careful consideration. The blog post argues against refactoring for its own sake, emphasizing that it should be driven by a clear purpose, like improving performance, adding features, or fixing bugs. Blindly pursuing "clean code" or preemptive refactoring can introduce new bugs, create unnecessary complexity, and waste valuable time. Instead, refactoring should be a strategic tool used to address specific problems and improve the maintainability of code that is actively being worked on, not a constant, isolated activity. Essentially, refactor with a goal, not just for aesthetic reasons.

  The blog post "Reasons Not to Refactor" by thoughtbot explores the multifaceted nature of refactoring decisions, arguing that refactoring, despite its perceived benefits, should not be undertaken indiscriminately. The author meticulously dismantles the commonly held belief that refactoring is always a positive activity and instead advocates for a more nuanced approach. They posit that refactoring, while potentially beneficial, can also be a misallocation of precious development resources if not approached strategically.

  The core argument centers around the concept of value. The author asserts that refactoring, in essence, is an investment, and like any investment, it should yield a demonstrable return. This return might manifest in several forms, such as improved maintainability, reduced future development time, or the ability to accommodate new features. However, if the projected return on investment from a refactoring effort is low or non-existent, then it's likely not a worthwhile endeavor.

  The post then delves into specific scenarios where refactoring might be counterproductive. One such scenario is refactoring code that is slated for imminent replacement. In this case, the effort expended on refactoring would be wasted, as the code will soon be discarded. Another scenario is refactoring code that is already adequately functional and maintainable. If the code performs its intended purpose effectively and doesn't pose significant challenges for future maintenance, then refactoring might introduce unnecessary risk without commensurate benefit.

  Further, the author emphasizes the importance of understanding the existing codebase before embarking on a refactoring journey. A superficial understanding of the code's intricacies can lead to unintended consequences and introduce new bugs, thereby negating the purported benefits of refactoring. The post stresses that a thorough comprehension of the code's functionality, dependencies, and potential side effects is paramount to a successful refactoring effort.

  Finally, the post acknowledges the emotional aspect of refactoring. Developers might feel a strong urge to "clean up" code that appears aesthetically displeasing or doesn't adhere to their preferred coding style. However, these subjective preferences should not be the primary drivers of refactoring decisions. Instead, objective considerations of value, maintainability, and overall project goals should guide the decision-making process. In conclusion, the post advocates for a pragmatic approach to refactoring, urging developers to critically evaluate the potential benefits and drawbacks before undertaking any refactoring activity. Refactoring should be a strategic tool used judiciously, not a reflexive response to perceived imperfections in the codebase.

  • refactoring
  • Software Development
  • code quality
  • Technical Debt
  • software engineering
  • programming
  • code maintenance
  • cost-benefit analysis
  • Business Value
  • premature optimization
  • code readability
  • Software Design

  Summary of Comments ( 34 )
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42928186

  Verbose tl;dr

  Hacker News users generally disagreed with the premise of the blog post, arguing that refactoring is crucial for maintaining code quality and developer velocity. Several commenters pointed out that the article conflates refactoring with rewriting, which are distinct activities. Others suggested the author's negative experiences stemmed from poorly executed refactors, rather than refactoring itself. The top comments highlighted the long-term benefits of refactoring, including reduced technical debt, improved readability, and easier debugging. Some users shared personal anecdotes about successful refactoring efforts, while others offered practical advice on when and how to refactor effectively. A few conceded that excessive or unnecessary refactoring can be detrimental, but emphasized that this doesn't negate the value of thoughtful refactoring.

  The Hacker News post titled "Reasons Not to Refactor" (linking to a thoughtbot blog post of the same name) generated a fair amount of discussion. Several commenters agreed with the premise of the article, emphasizing the importance of carefully considering the return on investment (ROI) before undertaking refactoring efforts. They pointed out that refactoring for its own sake can be wasteful, especially when dealing with legacy code that "just works." One commenter highlighted the risk of introducing bugs during refactoring, particularly in complex systems where the full ramifications of changes might not be immediately apparent. They advocated for a pragmatic approach, focusing on refactoring only when necessary, such as when adding new features or fixing bugs.

  Some commenters offered alternative perspectives on refactoring. One argued that the article seemed to conflate refactoring with rewriting, suggesting that true refactoring involves small, incremental changes that improve the code's structure without altering its functionality. This commenter emphasized the benefits of continuous refactoring, arguing that it can prevent code from becoming overly complex and difficult to maintain over time.

  Another commenter highlighted the importance of team communication and shared understanding when making decisions about refactoring. They suggested that refactoring can be a valuable learning opportunity for developers, allowing them to gain a deeper understanding of the codebase.

  The discussion also touched on the challenges of quantifying the benefits of refactoring. While some argued that reduced development time in the future is a clear benefit, others pointed out that this can be difficult to measure and justify to stakeholders who may prioritize immediate results.

  One commenter shared a personal anecdote about a successful refactoring effort, where they were able to significantly reduce the size and complexity of a codebase, leading to improved performance and maintainability. This example served to illustrate that refactoring can be beneficial when done strategically and with clear goals in mind.

  Overall, the comments on the Hacker News post presented a nuanced view of refactoring, acknowledging both its potential benefits and drawbacks. The discussion emphasized the importance of careful consideration, pragmatic decision-making, and clear communication when deciding whether and how to refactor code.

• Crushing Jira tickets is a party trick, not a path to impact

  permalink

  Posted: 2025-01-25 00:06:30

  Verbose tl;dr

  Focusing solely on closing Jira tickets gives a false sense of productivity. True impact comes from solving user problems and delivering valuable outcomes, not just completing tasks. While execution and shipping are important, prioritizing velocity over value leads to busywork and features nobody wants. Real product success requires understanding user needs, strategically choosing what to build, and measuring impact based on outcomes, not output. "Crushing Jira tickets" is a superficial performance that might impress some, but ultimately fails to move the needle on what truly matters.

  Sean Goedecke's blog post, "Crushing Jira tickets is a party trick, not a path to impact," argues against prioritizing the sheer volume of completed Jira tickets as a measure of productivity or success for software engineers. He posits that while efficiently working through a large number of tickets might appear impressive on the surface, like a captivating party trick, it often lacks genuine, meaningful impact on the overall success of a product or organization. This superficial focus on quantity over quality can be detrimental in the long run.

  Goedecke elaborates on this by highlighting the potential pitfalls of such an approach. He suggests that concentrating solely on closing tickets can lead engineers to prioritize low-hanging fruit – easily resolvable issues that require minimal effort – while neglecting more complex, albeit potentially more impactful, tasks. This can result in a backlog of critical improvements being perpetually deferred, hindering genuine progress and innovation. The analogy used is that of a magician dazzling the audience with sleight of hand while failing to address the real underlying issues.

  Furthermore, the post emphasizes the importance of understanding the underlying purpose and desired outcome associated with each ticket. Blindly completing tasks without grasping the larger context, argues Goedecke, can lead to misdirected efforts and ultimately diminish the overall value delivered. He advocates for engineers to adopt a more holistic approach, considering the broader business objectives and user needs before tackling individual tickets. This entails proactively engaging in discussions about the rationale behind the work, questioning assumptions, and suggesting alternative solutions that might better address the core problem.

  The author suggests that true impact stems from focusing on delivering value to the end-user, not simply closing tickets. This requires a shift in mindset from task completion to problem-solving and proactive contribution. Instead of viewing Jira tickets as a checklist to be conquered, engineers should see them as opportunities to contribute meaningfully to the product and its users. This involves understanding the 'why' behind each ticket, critically evaluating the proposed solution, and potentially even challenging the existence of the ticket itself if it doesn't align with the overarching goals.

  In conclusion, Goedecke advocates for a more nuanced understanding of productivity within software development. He posits that true success lies not in the quantity of completed Jira tickets, but in the quality of the work and its ultimate impact on the product and its users. He urges engineers to move beyond the superficial satisfaction of closing tickets and embrace a more strategic approach, prioritizing meaningful contributions and focusing on solving the right problems effectively. This shift in focus, he argues, will lead to more substantial and lasting positive outcomes for both the product and the organization.

  • Jira
  • productivity
  • Software Development
  • Impact
  • Metrics
  • Value Delivery
  • agile
  • project management
  • engineering management
  • Business Value
  • Work Culture
  • Efficiency vs Effectiveness

  Summary of Comments ( 2 )
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42818169

  Verbose tl;dr

  HN commenters largely agreed with the article's premise that focusing on closing Jira tickets doesn't necessarily translate to meaningful impact. Several shared anecdotes of experiencing or witnessing this "Jira treadmill" in their own workplaces, leading to busywork and a lack of focus on actual product improvement. Some questioned the framing of Jira as inherently bad, suggesting that the tool itself isn't the problem, but rather how it's used and the metrics derived from it. A few commenters offered alternative metrics and strategies for measuring impact, such as focusing on customer satisfaction, business outcomes, or demonstrable value delivered. There was also discussion around the importance of clear communication and alignment between teams on what constitutes valuable work, and the role of management in setting those expectations.

  The Hacker News post "Crushing Jira tickets is a path to impact" generated a lively discussion with various perspectives on the relationship between Jira tickets, productivity, and actual impact.

  Several commenters agreed with the sentiment of the title. They argued that focusing solely on closing tickets can lead to a "local optimization" trap where engineers prioritize easy-to-complete tasks over more impactful, but potentially more complex, work. One commenter described this as "checking boxes" instead of genuinely contributing to the product's success. They emphasized the importance of understanding the why behind the tickets and focusing on the overall goals of the project, rather than simply the number of tickets completed. This sentiment was echoed by another commenter who pointed out the risk of becoming a "ticket-closing machine" without considering the bigger picture. They advocated for a more proactive approach, where engineers actively seek out impactful work and contribute beyond the assigned tickets.

  Some commenters offered practical advice on how to avoid this trap. One suggestion was to regularly reflect on the impact of the completed work and to prioritize tasks based on their potential contribution to the overall project goals. Another commenter emphasized the importance of communication with product managers and stakeholders to ensure alignment between individual tasks and the overall product strategy.

  However, not everyone agreed with the premise of the post. Some argued that Jira tickets, when used correctly, can be a valuable tool for tracking progress and ensuring accountability. They pointed out that in large organizations, a certain level of process and structure is necessary to coordinate work effectively. One commenter argued that the problem isn't with Jira itself, but rather with how it's implemented and managed. They suggested that focusing on well-defined tickets with clear acceptance criteria can actually help engineers deliver value more efficiently.

  Another commenter highlighted the importance of context. They noted that in some situations, such as bug fixing or maintenance work, quickly closing tickets is a valuable contribution. They argued that the post overgeneralizes the issue and fails to acknowledge the nuances of different engineering roles and projects.

  Finally, some commenters offered alternative perspectives on the definition of "impact." One commenter suggested that impact can be measured in various ways, including improved code quality, reduced technical debt, or enhanced team collaboration. They argued that while closing Jira tickets may not always be directly visible to users, it can still contribute to the overall health and efficiency of the engineering team. Another commenter highlighted the importance of "invisible work," such as mentoring junior engineers or improving internal processes, which may not be reflected in Jira tickets but can have a significant long-term impact.