A Scrum team and external stakeholders must agree how much time to spend on documentation; ‘none’ is almost certainly the wrong answer
Where’s the documentation?
It’s Monday morning and the finance guy wants to know where the documentation is. This is somewhat disconcerting because half of the team doesn’t know who he is, let alone why he’s suddenly interested in a software development project, and because of the look on his face when you tell him that there isn’t any. So you talk.
It turns out that although this looks like just another productive Scrum project, from the development team’s point of view, there’s something missing. There’s great visibility of how things are going right now but there’s no long-term plan, and the external stakeholders are getting nervous, because they’re missing some sense of what the ‘whole project’ is. So they start picking on the lack of documentation.
Software project and system documentation used to come for ‘free’, on development projects that cost too much. Before agile software development, methodology focused on processes that anyone could systematically follow. This tended to result in lots of intermediate documentation intended to demonstrate that the process was being followed correctly, instead of more efficient but unverifiable verbal communication. This does not mean that this documentation wasn’t useful. It was useful, but expensive.
Business people who are new to agile software development may be surprised by and nervous about the lack of documentation. Without detailed functional specifications, how can there be agreement between business stakeholders and software developers? The answer is that agile software development involves talking to people. The lack of documentation doesn’t mean that the conversation isn’t taking place.
It is surprisingly difficult to get used to the idea that agile software development focuses on producing the software - if you want other more tangible deliverables then you’ll probably have to take care of them yourself.
Scrum doesn’t explicitly plan much in the way of documentation, but that doesn’t have to stop you using Scrum principles and your Scrum process to add them to your project if necessary.
It’s another Monday morning, it’s the middle of the sprint and the development team is humming along nicely - everyone’s doing fine. Except for the new guy. He’s just joined the team and is feeling frustrated because the software is complex enough and difficult to understand, and the rest of the team don’t appreciate being interrupted with all of the ‘what does this mean?’ questions.
It turns out that the problem is that the data model is just one big ball of jargon and that once you understand that you can work everything else. Given that this is a pretty common issue in domain-specific software, you know what to do: you add a technical task to write a data dictionary. This will de-jargonify the system by defining what every entity and attribute means, what it’s for, and what its data looks like.
A Scrum development team needs some basic system and functional design documentation. System documentation, such as a development environment set-up guide, smoothes over the disruption caused by team member changes. Functional design documentation, such as a functional overview or data dictionary, makes communication more effective by defining what the software is about and what the jargon means.
When the team writes documentation for itself, this is an overhead task that is intended to support software development. The goal of spending time on this documentation is to increase velocity, not to support some ideal that there should be certain kinds of documentation. This means that there is no reason to involve the Product Owner in planning this kind of documentation.
The best approach is to budget this documentation as a fixed small overhead per sprint. This can either be a fixed time budget or a technical task. For example, team members might take it in turns to spend one hour per week updating documentation, or half an hour each, or to schedule a technical task to add or update one document every sprint.
External stakeholder documentation
It’s Friday afternoon, and the project is basically ‘done’. The last release just passed acceptance testing and it’s going in production next week. The last thing the development team is expecting at this point to write functional documentation, so they’re surprised when someone from marketing shows to ask for just that. The software might be ready, but now there’s a press release and brochures to write, and a web site to produce.
A software project’s business sponsors sometimes want to see some kind of functional specification that defines what the system does. With pictures. That’s all very well, but Scrum isn’t going to give you one of those. Even though the Scrum process evolves, no Sprint retrospective ever resulted in a team deciding to cancel the next two sprints and write an old-school fifty-page* functional specification. However, a good functional overview and pretty screen shots turn out to be useful for related non-software activities, such as marketing.
Documentation for stakeholders outside the development team is different, in that the development team doesn’t need it.
The team doesn’t need this documentation to develop the software, so it is an additional deliverable. This means that it is best to make a user story for each documentation task, and estimate and schedule it as part of the normal Scrum process. This empowers the Product Owner to decide how important the documentation is, compared to work on the software itself.
Old hands in software often reminisce about how some 1970’s software manual was a work of literature, and all kinds of essential. Then the web was invented, and spiral-bound historical artefacts were replaced by HTML. Meanwhile, we sometimes get stuck with the idea that there should be a physical ‘manual’, even though we all know deep down that no-one is actually going to read it and that there are more accessible approaches to software documentation.
You can’t see software, but you can see a manual. If you get a nice cover design, perhaps with retro 70s design elements, it might even look good on the shelf. This is vanity documentation, which is the strangest kind of documentation.
An occasional challenge in agile software development is the need to be honest about what deliverables are for, when they’re not about finishing the software. Occasionally, a documentation deliverable’s only real purpose is to look good, or to make someone look good. Not only does the development team not need this documentation to produce the software, but no-one needs it.
This is actually just a special case of external stakeholder documentation, with the catch that it might be difficult to get anyone to agree that they want it enough to pay for it, without being able to explain why. From the development team’s point of view, you can have it if you pay for it, along with pointless features in the software itself.
There are many different good reasons to be writing documentation on an agile software development project, even though that documentation might not be necessarily for simply developing the software with the existing team. For planning purposes, it’s useful to consider two categories: developer documentation and external stakeholder documentation.
Developer documentation is documentation that addresses project impediments and improves productivity. This puts it in the same category as other useful work that is not part of the deliverable software, such as automated tests, and can be planned the same way. It is usually enough to plan the occasional technical task to create or update system documentation, rather than updating the ‘definition of done’ to include a documentation check for every user story, because the most useful documentation is system-level rather than feature-level documentation.
External stakeholder documentation is anything that is required beyond the scope of the software itself, as part of the software project. When this work competes for the same resources on the development team as programming, it is useful to plan the same way: use user stories. This way the documentation can be judged on the same terms as other work: business value and cost.
Fifty pages if you’re lucky, usually more.