code

In my previous post on the new engineering leadership skills needed in a devops world, I called for a more systematic approach to developing leadership capabilities in engineering. But I gave no answers. In this post, I’ll share my practical approach to developing leadership capabilities in an engineering organisation.

When developing great software, there are some fundamental questions all engineers have:

What can I decide?
Who can make decisions on things I cannot decide?
Who do I need to talk to or involve when resolving an issue?
Who determines the targets for what we make, how we make it, and how we go about doing it?
What is expected of me and what kind of rewards do I get when I meet expectations?

In a small startup team, you don’t really need a lot of these things explicit. The goals, actions, and rewards are mostly shared across the team, and everybody contributes where they see a need. The entire team has the same priorities, the tradeoffs are decided upon continuously, and changing course is done quickly.

However, you cannot grow much as an organisation without introducing slightly different priorities in different teams or roles. You are starting to introduce the cost of coordination. For a while, you can align everybody around the same priorities through some kind of coordination process or meeting that gives you the “top 5 things to work on this week”. But to allow rapid growth you need to at some point allow different people or teams to focus on different priorities. I have seen numerous approaches to solving the resulting coordination problem, and most either introduce too much process or too little.

There is no single answer that works for everybody in every situation. However, if we go to the fundamentals of how to build great software, there are four different areas that always have to be covered in some way:

Build high quality code, designs, and other tangible stuff
Knowing what to make to solve the customer’s problem
Knowing how to technically solve the problems and deliver something that will work over time
Knowing how to go about making the tangible stuff like code and actually delivered what’s agreed upon

The skills that go into each of these four areas are very different. And the more people involved, the more coordination and collaboration is needed to make sure everybody is pulling in the same direction. Ideally, you want everybody to be 100% productive, but that is not possible as long as there is some kind of dependency between what people are supposed to do. How do you get the productivity percentage as high as possible?

Typically, each of these responsibilities translates into one of four roles (not individuals):

Developers build stuff
Backlog owners manage the priorities and the definitions of what is to be made
Technical architects determine how to technically solve problems
Engineering managers lead people, the process of development, assign the right person to the right task, and ensure velocity

These are roles, not individuals, so many engineers will wear multiple hats. Also, there is one missing part here: the service or product. Each organisation has to break down its services and products (and thus code bases) and group them in a sensible way. Once that is done, it should be possible to identify the developers, backlog owner, the manager, and the architect for each. An engineer can be a developer on one code base/service, an architect on another, as well as manage a deliverable.

This break down into modules and components is absolutely critical to the productivity of your engineering organisation and subject to Conway’s law.

Unless you match the identified ownerships and roles with your modules and components and get that right relative to your organisational structure, you are introducing inefficiencies in your software architecture and how people communicate. This is a continuous process and needs to be adapted to the changing needs with respect to both features and the underlying system architecture.

Going back to the questions at the top of this post (that most people have in a software development organisation), it should now be possible to answer the questions. You don’t have to go through a central manager or (..!) a committee or a process, you can reach out directly to the person in charge who can make a decision. E.g. if you are a backlog owner and you need more engineers to work on your backlog, you can talk to a manager. If you need an evaluation for how to implement a certain functionality, you talk to the architect. If several components need to communicate through an API, you know exactly whom to invite to discuss this.

You thus get an organisation that can resolve most day to day matters without central coordination.

Typically, you will have triplets of lead people for each of your main components: a manager, an architect, and a backlog owner. The development team can thus be productive by getting help from each of these three. Ideally, all three roles/people are co-located physically for highest productivity since high velocity requires quick and frequent touch points.

There are two other roles missing in this picture: if the team is a product team, you need a product manager role (who could also be the backlog owner, dependent on skill set). If your component or product has a UI, you should also have a UX lead who can work with the backlog owner and product manager to get clarity on the deliverables. See also an earlier post on the backlog and the product owner role.

This model is also good for training and career development. There are four areas where skills can be built dependent on individual interest. As engineers grow from juniors to become more senior, they will take on more roles and expand what they take ownership of. Some may want to take on manager roles and lead teams. Some may want to deep dive in a very narrow technical area and become lead architect.

Remember that any changes in an organisation will take time. You need to repeatedly clarify the expectations, the opportunities, show that real authority to make decisions come with these roles, and systematically encourage people to take ownership. And if people are uncertain, you need to exemplify what concrete tasks and actions are necessary and expected.

The reward is an empowered engineering organisation that can deliver great software with high velocity!

Production-ready flutter apps are rare species…

Flutter promises a lot. It has also quite a few new interesting characteristics that are attractive to a CTO. When is it production-ready for your next app and how does it stack up against native apps and React Native? Will it survive and thrive over time? And for what type of projects is it suitable already now?

When Flutter first came out of beta, I started playing with it and quickly achieved a lot and had great fun. But I couldn’t find much evidence and code that showed how to bring a large Flutter app into production and maintain it over time. As a CTO, I love playing with new technology, but I also want to understand maturity when it comes to flexibility, maintainability, support for features typically needed for large-scale production applications, and life-time cost vs other alternative eco-systems. I ended up pulling together my own Flutter starter app that includes some of the important production app features, just to see how to do it and what the challenges are. In this post, I present what I did. If the interest is big enough, I may cover specific features of the app in follow-up posts.

The resulting starter app can be found at https://github.com/gregertw/actingweb_firstapp. The README describes how to run it and start playing with it. It does not cover all the things I wanted to include (and that are needed in a production app), but it is a good start. Here’s a quick summary of what the app covers in a running starter app:

Separation of business logic in models and providers, and UI in a separate folder structure
Use of a global UI theme and custom icons for both iOS and Android
Use of scoped_model for app state management
Simple widget framework for handling logged-in, expired, and logged-out states
State management of login and login token using Auth0 including permanent storage for restarts
Localisation using i18n and the Android Studio/IntelliJ flutter i18n plugin to generate boilerplate
Testing using unit test framework and mocking
Use of a plugin that is not published (flutter_auth0)
Use of a OS native capability (location tracking) using a published plugin (geolocator)
Use of Firebase Analytics for usage tracking
Use of Firebase Crashlytics for crash reporting

First login screen
Redirect to Auth0 Universal Login
Location event stream

Obviously, different people value different things, so let me be explicit on what I was trying to achieve. First of all, separation of code related to UI and business logic makes it easier to get good feature velocity as developers can work on the UI and business logic independently. This is not enforced by Flutter, so you need to be careful when building up the app structure. I created a global UI theme (good), created a provider for authentication using a separate folder with code files for business logic for Auth0 authentication (also good), but copied code from geolocator’s example code where widgets and logic were in a single file (bad).

State management is super-important to avoid high complexity, errors in the UI, slow rendering of the app, and the need to re-write state code as the application evolves. I tried out setState, inheritedWidget, BLOC, Redux, and scoped model (overview of state management approaches here). Of these, I evaluated setState and inheritedWidget to be too simple for a larger project, while BLOC and Redux are both viable choices for applications with lots of data. BLOC fits better in with the Flutter language constructs, but if you are used to Redux, that is probably your preferred choice. For this not-so-data-heavy app, I chose scoped model as a simple, but very powerful state library that fits nicely into Flutter thinking.

There are lots of great posts on Flutter widgets and how to build up your app, but very few that shows how to pull together login screens, storing tokens (also permanently), and handling logged in/out state. A mobile app typically needs an access token to connect to backend APIs. I explored using Firebase as an authentication service, but decided to go for Auth0 as it was easier to show a more generic approach to handling logins and access tokens. Using shared_preferences, I could store the access token across app and device restarts.

There are two things everybody knows should be part of any project, but that you typically add too late: testing and localisation. I wanted to test basic unit testing, mocking, as well as UI widget testing. I played with http_server to set up a mock web server (code is still in the test/ folder), however, I managed to do what I wanted with mocking of Auth0. The UI widget testing is still missing (PRs welcome!), but I added simple app state testing, as well as mocking of login and logout.
Localisation is in its basic form a mess in Flutter, with lots of boilerplate. The only viable option I could find was to use an Android Studio/IntelliJ plugin called flutter_i18n. It uses .arb files with translations for each language and auto-generates the boilerplate necessary to inject a localisation class S into the widgets.

One of the concerns about Flutter is how the platform-independent overlay interacts with the iOS and Android platforms to make apps that can run on both platforms. I thus wanted to both use an OS-native capability in my app (device geo location), as well as test out how to integrate code into the app that needs OS-specific code. The flutter-auth0 plugin is not published and the project was somewhat dormant, but had what I needed for Auth0 authentication and authorisation functionality, so I forked the project and used that plugin for Auth0 support. Callbacks are needed for the authn/authz flows, and this is handled with OS-specific code. Also, the geolocator plugin uses OS-specific location code, but is a published and supported library/plugin, so I could then test both.

Finally, I wanted to add analytics and crash reporting capabilities, as well as test out how to integrate with one of the backend-as-a-service offerings. I explored AWS Amplify and Google Firebase, but from a library support, only Firebase had mature enough libraries, so Firebase realistically was the only option (about six months ago). Any production-grade app needs this support, and while I have not actually put this app into production, the integration was simple enough and with Google having bought Fabric, the Crashlytics part “came for free” (though with a bit too complicated configuration).

Overall, I came out with a positive view on the readiness for production for Flutter apps. Not all apps can easily be implemented in Flutter, but if your app does not have fancy and very custom UI requirements and only uses standard OS-level functionality, you can get a LOT of velocity by having a single code base and a single team. Investing in Flutter is still a bet on the future.

On the downside, you still work in two eco-systems in parallel. Upgrading Xcode/iOS, to new libraries (e.g. AndroidX), and build system changes requires an understanding of the eco-systems and preferably Swift/Kotlin(Java). You need to continuously update to the latest technologies and libraries to avoid that you get stuck in incompatibilities between components. The library/plugin system is powerful and you can lock the dependencies, which is a good thing, but you need to investigate the maturity and history of what you choose to dependent on. If not, you may end up stuck with an important component that is not actively maintained. This means that your team should have a decent level of iOS and Android eco-system expertise in addition to Flutter to make sure you navigate well.

Comparing with React Native, it is an eco-system that has more maturity (but less focused direction), but with similar dependencies on the underlying OS. Flutter has quickly become a viable alternative. At this point, the choice is probably less about technology and more about strategy, people, and skills. If you want your frontend developers to develop mobile apps and they are already using React for web, then React Native is a logical choice. If you see mobile apps more in the context of desktop apps/unified web/desktop development, if you have more business logic, and you want UI/UX to be shared across web, mobile apps, and desktop applications, your business logic developers may be more comfortable in a language like Dart that is very similar to Java.
Many technology choices are of such a nature that engineers tend to forget that often the biggest concern is people and competences, not technical capabilities!

There is still one big missing piece in my evaluation: deployment pipeline and lifecycle management. Since I haven’t put the app into production, I have not tested code signing, beta testing, A/B testing, as well as upgrading the app. There is very limited information to be found on these aspects. However, as with the evaluation on AWS Amplify, I suspect that the only real choice for now (unless you like pain) is to go for Firebase and the eco-system around Google. The same holds for app messaging, a feature that I would love to the app, but I haven’t had the chance to do.

Feel free to interact and help me improve the starter app at https://github.com/gregertw/actingweb_firstapp! I would also love feedback if you are using it for your projects and get interesting experiences!

code

A Practical Approach to Engineering Leadership

A Production-Quality Flutter Starter App