Optimize Batch Sizes

Table of Contents

What are “Batches” in Product Development?

Batch size refers to the quantity or volume of tasks, items, or units grouped for processing, development, or transmission at one time.

In product management and software development, batch size can range from a singular task, feature, or code change to a comprehensive set of multiple tasks, features, or bug fixes. The choice of batch size impacts a process or system’s flow, efficiency, and overall performance.

In Software Product Development, “Batches” can refer to:

Releases – one or more user stories, epics, and features can roll up into a single product release. Releases can occur (for example) every six months, every three months, or every six weeks (or more frequently)
Features / Epics – one or more user stories can roll up into product Features or Epics
User stories – multiple tasks can roll up into user stories – some user stories could represent two weeks’ worth of work, and other users may represent three days worth of work
Research activities – some hypotheses could take weeks or months to test, and others can be tested in days.

The Origin of Batches in Manufacturing

Batching originated in the manufacturing industry, rooted in the principles of mass production.

Batch processing in manufacturing dates back to the early stages of industrialization. Its primary goal was to maximize efficiency and output by grouping similar tasks, items, or components to be processed together. This approach allowed manufacturers to produce goods on a large scale, reducing the time and cost associated with individual production.

Batch Sizes - Origin of Batches in Manufacturing Historically, the manufacturing industry relied on batch processing for several reasons. First, it facilitated the efficient use of machinery and resources. By processing many items simultaneously, manufacturers could make full use of their equipment, reducing idle time. Second, batch processing enabled easier quality control, as batches of products could be inspected and tested together. Finally, it was conducive to labor organization, allowing workers to specialize in specific tasks and improving overall productivity.

However, the batch system also had limitations. It often led to significant inventory buildup, as products had to wait in queues for processing. This waiting time increased the overall lead time and reduced the system’s responsiveness to market changes. Moreover, the focus on maximizing output sometimes came at the expense of flexibility and customization.

The evolution from traditional batch processing in manufacturing to more flexible and responsive methods has significantly influenced modern product development, especially in software. Lean manufacturing and agile methodologies, which advocate for smaller batches and more iterative processes, have been inspired by the need to overcome the limitations of traditional batch processing.

Why Optimize Batch Sizes?

There are ten specific ways in which smaller batch sizes positively impact development. These include faster feedback loops, reduced risk, increased flexibility, and enhanced productivity. Additionally, understanding the economic trade-offs of smaller batch sizes is essential. Smaller batches can lead to more frequent deliveries but require more frequent planning and re-prioritization.

Optimizing Batch Size Reduces Cycle Time

In software development, smaller batch sizes directly reduce cycle time, independent of demand or capacity changes, as demonstrated by queue size correlations in Cumulative Flow Diagrams (CFDs).

Cumulative Flow Diagrams (CFDs) effectively illustrate how varying batch sizes impact queue sizes in software development processes. These diagrams reveal a proportional relationship between batch size and queue size. The fundamental principle is that smaller batch sizes result in smaller queues. According to Little’s Law, the queue size is a determining factor for the cycle time, which is the time from the initiation to the completion of a process.

The significant insight from this principle is that reducing the batch size reduces cycle time. This reduction is achievable without altering other variables, such as the average rate of task arrival (demand) or the rate of task completion (capacity). The independence from demand and capacity changes is crucial because altering these can incur substantial economic costs.

In software development, consider a team working on a project. If they tackle smaller chunks of work at a time (smaller batches), they will have fewer tasks in their queue. This reduction in the queue size translates to a faster turnaround time for each task (reduced cycle time), enhancing overall efficiency.

This principle emphasizes that significant improvements in cycle times are possible without the need to increase resources or limit the inflow of work. Batch size reduction offers a cost-effective strategy for software development teams to boost efficiency and responsiveness.

Optimizing Batch Size Reduces Variability

In software development, smaller batch sizes reduce variability in workflow, preventing overloads and queues without necessitating capacity increases, similar to staggering lunch hours to avoid cafeteria crowding.

Reducing batch sizes in software development significantly decreases the variability in workflow. Large batches are known to introduce a higher degree of variation in the flow of tasks, leading to periodic overloads. This concept is similar to a restaurant that can handle a steady flow of small groups but struggles with a sudden influx of a large tour group. In software development, large batches of tasks can overwhelm various stages of the process, much like a large group at a restaurant disrupts seating, ordering, and service.

Applying this principle to software development, imagine an engineering team working on a large batch of features. The large batch can lead to congestion at various stages, from design to testing. By breaking down the work into smaller batches, the team can reduce the variability in their workflow. This approach prevents bottlenecks and allows for smoother progress without additional resources or capacity expansion.

In essence, batch size reduction is one of the simplest yet most effective strategies to reduce variability and prevent workflow congestion in software development.

Optimizing Batch Sizes Accelerates Feedback

Smaller batches in software development rapidly accelerate feedback, controlling failure consequences and reducing economic costs, unlike the less frequent feedback cycles in stable manufacturing environments.

In software development, reducing batch sizes significantly accelerates the feedback cycle. This is crucial because, unlike manufacturing, where feedback occurs infrequently, the software development process thrives on continuous, rapid feedback. This constant feedback loop is economically vital as it allows for the timely identification and rectification of issues.

Software development inherently involves experimenting and facing the risk of failure. Unlike manufacturing, where the optimum failure rate is lower, product development thrives on a higher failure rate to innovate and improve. Rapid feedback is essential to control the economic cost of these failures. Delays in feedback can exponentially increase the consequences of failures.

Every engineering decision in software development sets the stage for numerous subsequent decisions. As time progresses, the number of dependent decisions grows geometrically. A single incorrect assumption can lead to a need for extensive rework, and the longer the feedback is delayed, the more costly this rework becomes.

Fast feedback from smaller batches allows immediate course correction, preventing minor issues from escalating into significant problems. This rapid response is beneficial for any task in software development, regardless of whether it’s on the critical path. Accelerated feedback helps curb unproductive pathways before they cause substantial economic damage, making it a powerful tool for enhancing efficiency and reducing costs in software development.

Optimizing Batch Sizes Reduces Risk

Smaller batch sizes in software development reduce risk by decreasing cycle time, lowering failure rates, and accelerating feedback.

In software development, reducing the size of batches directly correlates with a decrease in risk. This risk reduction is attributed to three primary factors:

Shorter Queues, Decreased Cycle Time: Smaller batches lead to shorter queues, decreasing the cycle time. This reduced cycle time limits exposure to changes in technology and requirements.
Lower Failure Risk: Breaking down large batches into several smaller ones reduces the risk of failure. Smaller batches are easier to manage and troubleshoot, leading to a more resilient process.
Accelerated Feedback: As discussed earlier, smaller batches accelerate feedback, minimizing the consequences of errors. In software development, this translates to managing tasks in smaller segments. When a task is divided into smaller batches, it’s easier to identify and correct errors with minimal impact on the overall process, as smaller batches have higher quality and efficiency by isolating and addressing issues promptly and effectively.

Optimizing Batch Sizes Reduces Management Overhead

Contrary to common belief, smaller batches in software development reduce overhead by decreasing bug accumulation, simplifying tracking, and minimizing the need for frequent status reports.

Smaller batches streamline development processes, reduce the administrative burden, and thus lead to a reduction in overall overhead for three reasons, and they are:

Reduced Bug Accumulation: Testing software in smaller batches significantly lowers the average number of open bugs at any given time. For example, if a team tests in large batches and has 300 open bugs, identifying and checking new bugs against this large number is time-consuming. In contrast, with smaller batches, say 30 open bugs, verifying new bugs against this smaller number is much quicker and more efficient.
Simplified Bug Tracking: Smaller batches streamline the process of tracking and resolving bugs. When dealing with fewer issues, identifying, documenting, and addressing each bug is less complex and requires less administrative overhead.
Fewer Status Reports: Larger work-in-progress (WIP) necessitates more frequent status reports. A team with 300 open bugs will likely provide more marketing or other department updates than just 30 bugs. Moreover, the longer flow-through time with larger batches means these reports are needed over a more extended period, further increasing overhead.

Optimizing Batch Sizes Increases Process Efficiency

In software development, smaller batches enhance efficiency by maintaining crucial feedback loops and reducing the complexity of debugging, contrary to the perceived efficiency of larger batches.

Smaller batches in software development are found to improve overall efficiency, challenging the common belief that large batches increase the efficiency of individual engineers. While large batches may seem efficient for a single engineer, they often disrupt essential feedback loops and lower overall process efficiency.

Feedback Loops and Rework: In software development, if developers wait to review and integrate a large number of features, say 50, into the main branch at once, they face the risk of integration conflicts and code inconsistencies. Early and frequent integration, for example, after every feature or small group of features, ensures that issues are identified and addressed promptly, preventing the accumulation of errors and reducing the rework needed in later stages.
Complexity in Debugging: In software development, large batches increase the complexity of debugging. For example, when programmers change many lines of code in a single release, the complexity of debugging grows exponentially with the number of changes. This increased complexity makes large changes more expensive and time-consuming to debug than smaller ones.
Memory and Efficiency: Fast feedback also plays a critical role in efficiency. Engineering work is complex and remains fresh in an engineer’s mind for a limited time. Receiving feedback on code within 24 hours is far more effective than receiving the same feedback after 90 days, when the programmer may not recall the specifics of their work.

Optimizing Batch Sizes Improves Motivation

Smaller batches in software development heighten motivation and urgency by concentrating responsibility, providing rapid feedback, and fostering a sense of control and accountability among team members.

Small batches in software development have a significant positive effect on the psychology of team members, enhancing their motivation and sense of urgency. This occurs in two main ways:

Concentrated Responsibility: When developers are responsible for a small module with a short deadline, they feel a heightened sense of urgency and accountability. Conversely, individual urgency diminishes in large batches where responsibility is distributed among many modules with distant deadlines. This diluted responsibility can lead to a lack of focus and reduced personal accountability, as the perception is that there’s plenty of time left or that someone else might be responsible for potential delays.
Rapid Feedback and Positive Reinforcement: Smaller batches enable quicker feedback on work, which highly motivates engineers. Rapid feedback provides immediate reinforcement of success, boosting motivation. It helps quickly identify and rectify errors, which is energizing and prevents demoralization from heading in the wrong direction for a prolonged period. Fast feedback also gives engineers control over their work instead of feeling like a cog in a bureaucratic machine.

Big Batches cause Exponential Slippage

Big batches in software development lead to exponential slippage due to increased complexity, higher risk of errors, and more challenging integration and testing processes.

Big batches in software development cause exponential slippage by introducing increased complexity and a higher risk of errors. In large batches, numerous features and changes are bundled together. This accumulation makes understanding, implementing, and testing the changes more challenging. As the batch size grows, the complexity increases non-linearly, leading to disproportionately higher chances of mistakes and oversights.

Large batches make integration more difficult. Integrating many changes at once can lead to conflicts and issues that are hard to trace and resolve. This challenge is compounded when multiple teams work on different parts of the system, and coordination becomes more complex.
Testing is more cumbersome with big batches. Testing must be thorough to ensure all new features and changes work as expected and do not break existing functionalities. The larger the batch, the more time and resources are required for comprehensive testing.
The risk of errors increases with batch size. With more changes, there’s a greater likelihood of introducing bugs or unintended consequences. These errors often require additional time to identify and fix, further delaying the project.

All these factors contribute to exponential slippage: as batch size doubles, the complexity and potential issues more than double, leading to a nonlinear increase in the time required to complete the work. This principle underlines the importance of smaller, more frequent releases in software development to reduce complexity, minimize errors, and ensure smoother integration and testing processes.

The Big Batch Death Spiral

In software development, large batches lead to a death spiral due to escalating complexity, cognitive biases, resource attraction, and a cycle of continuously increasing batch sizes.

In software development, large batches can trigger a ‘death spiral’ effect, where their size leads to even larger batches. This phenomenon begins when a large-scale software project spirals out of control, creating a situation akin to a death march. Everyone involved recognizes the impending doom yet feels powerless to change the course due to entrenched expectations and investments.

Entrenched Expectations: Once upper management receives assurance of a project’s success, reversing this forecast becomes difficult. This leads to a commitment to continue despite growing problems.
Cognitive Dissonance: Investment in a project causes a bias towards positive interpretations of related information. The more the investment, the greater the distortion of reality.
Resource Magnetism: Large projects become too significant to fail, attracting additional resources, scope, and risk. Management supports anything perceived as beneficial, often without critical evaluation.
Black Hole Effect: These projects uncontrollably draw in more resources, becoming black holes in product development. They consume vast amounts of time, money, and human resources.
Escalating Batch Size: Large test packages and other elements of the project increase in importance with their size. This leads to a cycle where adding to the batch becomes a strategy for prioritization, further increasing its size.
Priority Inflation: As the project’s importance grows, its components, like test packages, receive higher priority. This prioritization further encourages the inclusion of additional elements, perpetuating the cycle.

The Lowest Common Denominator hinders Big Batches

The lowest common denominator principle governs big batches in software development due to the constraint posed by their most challenging or time-consuming component.

In a batch of tasks or features, the slowest or most complex element sets the pace for the entire batch. For instance, if a software release includes various features, and one is particularly complex or requires extensive testing, this feature becomes the bottleneck. As a result, the entire batch, including more straightforward or quicker-to-implement features, is delayed until this complex feature is completed.

The critical problem with big batches is that they fail to account for the variability in individual task complexities. When tasks are batched together, the assumption is often that they can be processed as a single unit. However, in practice, each task or feature within a batch may have different requirements, dependencies, and levels of complexity. This lack of differentiation in big batches leads to inefficiencies, as the entire batch is held up by its most challenging component.

To mitigate this, agile methodologies advocate for smaller batches or incremental development. By breaking down work into smaller, more manageable pieces, teams can deliver value more frequently and respond more rapidly to changes. This approach also enables parallel processing of tasks, where simpler features can be developed, tested, and delivered without waiting for the more complex features to be completed, thus avoiding the limitations imposed by the lowest common denominator in big batches.

Economic Considerations in Batch Size Optimization

What Determines the Optimal Batch Size in Product Development?

Optimal batch size in software development balances transaction and holding costs, following a U-curve optimization.

In software development, batch size represents a U-curve optimization problem to minimize total cost. This cost involves a balance between transaction cost and holding cost. Transaction cost refers to the expense of processing a batch in a development or testing phase. Holding cost is associated with delays or postponements in processing the batch.

The U-curve for optimal batch size has three key properties:

Continuity: The curve is continuous, allowing for incremental adjustments in batch size. For instance, if a software team is testing 300 units, they can adjust to 299 units without major disruption, unlike capacity adjustments, which often require significant changes, such as adding new resources or infrastructure.
Reversibility: Batch size adjustments are reversible, permitting flexibility in response to changing project needs. If a software team finds a specific batch size ineffective, they can revert or adjust accordingly. This contrasts with irreversible decisions like adding permanent team members or resources.
Forgiving of Errors: The U-curve’s shape is forgiving; minor deviations from the optimal point don’t lead to significant economic losses. This means software teams don’t need a perfect batch size from the start but can experiment and find an optimal point over time.

For example, in a software development context, a team might initially choose smaller batch sizes during phases of high uncertainty, like frequent iterations in agile development. As the project stabilizes, they might opt for larger batches, reflecting a shift in the balance between transaction and holding costs.

What are examples of Transaction Costs in Software Development?

Transaction costs in software development include setup, communication, integration, and review costs for moving batches through development phases.

In software development, transaction cost encompasses the overhead of transitioning a batch, such as a set of features, bug fixes, or code changes, through different stages of the development lifecycle. Critical components of transaction costs are:

Setup Costs are the initial efforts needed to prepare the environment, tools, or resources for starting a specific development task. For example, configuring development environments or preparing necessary hardware and software tools.
Communication Costs: This involves the time and resources spent coordinating among teams, mainly when a batch of changes necessitates collaboration across different departments or specialties. It includes meetings, discussions, and the exchange of information required to ensure all team members are aligned and informed.
Integration Costs: This refers to the effort to incorporate a batch of changes into the existing codebase. Larger batches might lead to more complex merge conflicts or dependencies, requiring significant time and effort for successful integration. This is critical in scenarios where multiple features are developed in parallel and must be merged into a main branch or system.
Review and QA Costs: Larger batches require more time for thorough review and quality assurance testing. This can lead to delays in obtaining feedback and extending the duration of QA cycles, affecting the overall development timeline. These costs increase with the batch size, as more extensive testing and review are necessary to ensure the quality and functionality of the changes.

What are examples of Holding Costs in Software Development?

Holding costs in software development include opportunity costs, technical debt, decreased market competitiveness, and resource stagnation due to batch delays.

Holding costs in software development arise from delaying the progression of a batch, such as features or fixes, through the development process. These costs manifest in various forms:

Opportunity Costs: Delaying a feature or fix extends the time it takes to reach end-users. This delay can result in postponed revenue or a decline in customer satisfaction, as the benefits of new or improved functionalities are not realized promptly.
Technical Debt: When batches are held back, the software is often not updated or fixed promptly. This delay leads to the accumulation of technical issues, which can escalate in complexity and become more costly and challenging to resolve as time progresses.
Decreased Market Competitiveness: In the fast-paced technology sector, any delay in releasing new features or updates can allow competitors to capture the market first with similar offerings. This loss of market edge can significantly impact a company’s market position and revenue.
Resource Stagnation: Holding onto batches can result in the underutilization of valuable resources, both human and computational. If not tied up in stagnant projects, these resources could be effectively deployed on other high-priority or more impactful tasks, enhancing productivity and innovation.

How does reducing Transaction Costs lower overall Batch Costs?

Decreasing batch size would result in more frequent transaction costs without reducing transaction costs, inadvertently increasing total costs.

Japanese manufacturers revolutionized this concept. They challenged the notion of “fixed” transaction costs, previously accepted as unchangeable. For instance, in the context of die stamping machines, the Japanese reduced changeover times from 24 hours to less than 10 minutes through methods pioneered by Shigeo Shingo, known as single-minute exchange of dies (SMED). This drastic reduction changed the economics of batch size, allowing for much smaller batches without increased transaction costs.

Applying this to software development, significant improvements, especially in testing, often result from automating processes. For example, if setting up a test takes 24 hours, testing cannot occur daily. Reducing transaction costs, such as automating test setups, makes using smaller batches more frequently feasible.

Moreover, as transaction costs decrease and batch sizes are optimized, total costs also reduce. For instance, halving transaction costs can lead to a new operating point where total costs are cut by half. This shows a direct correlation between reduced transaction costs and lower overall costs in software development.

The Non-Linear Benefits of Smaller Batches

In software development, smaller batches yield non-linear benefits by disproportionately reducing transaction and holding costs and exponentially decreasing complexities associated with larger batches.

Aiming for a batch size significantly smaller than linear models suggest is more effective in software development. Even if this leads to batch sizes smaller than the theoretical optimum, the risk of a slight increase in total cost is negligible compared to the exponential benefits of enhanced efficiency and reduced complexities.

Transactional Cost Cycle: In software development, reducing transaction costs increases transaction volumes. This cycle amplifies the benefits of smaller batches, far exceeding linear predictions.
Exponential Complexity Reduction: Larger batches in software exponentially increase complexities like debugging and status reporting. Smaller batches cause a significant, non-linear decrease in these complexities, enhancing efficiency.
Holding Costs Spike Non-Linearly: As batch sizes increase in software processes, holding costs, including risks of outdated work products, rise faster than linearly. This non-linear growth makes large batches inefficient and costly.

Fine-tuning capacity utilization using Smaller Batches

Small batches in software development enhance capacity utilization by filling gaps and reducing queues, similar to using sand to fill spaces between rocks in a jar.

In software development, small batches offer a significant advantage in optimizing capacity utilization. This approach is efficient when dealing with varying batch sizes, including large batches. To understand this, consider the analogy of filling a jar. If you only use large rocks, there will be wasted space. However, by filling the gaps with smaller stones or sand, the jar’s capacity is utilized more efficiently. Scheduling large tasks and filling in the gaps with smaller tasks in software development achieves a similar effect. This method ensures that the available capacity is used effectively without leaving unutilized spaces, leading to better overall efficiency.

This can be compared to continuous integration in software development, contrasting with traditional, infrequent integration methods. In conventional integration approaches, integrating various parts of a software project happens less frequently, often leading to significant challenges in merging changes and unutilized developer capacity during waiting periods. Conversely, continuous integration involves regularly integrating small pieces of code and features. This approach ensures that every small period of developer capacity is utilized effectively, integrating and testing code. Continuous integration, like packet-switching, maximizes resource utilization, reduces integration challenges, and decreases wait times, leading to more efficient and streamlined software development processes.

The advantage of this approach is not just in using capacity more effectively but also in the significant impact it has on reducing queues and cycle times. Small packets (or batches) lead to better utilization of resources and smaller queues, as they can be routed through various paths, taking advantage of any available capacity. This leads to a reduction in wait times and faster overall processing.

Using loose coupling to enable small batches

Loose coupling between product subsystems enables parallel, independent development, reducing dependencies and increasing throughput and flexibility.

Loose coupling involves creating subsystems that can be tested independently of the entire system, reducing dependencies between different parts.

Such a structure in software design allows for parallel development of different subsystems, significantly improving throughput and development speed. This is because loosely coupled architectures with stable interfaces enable developers to work on different components simultaneously without the risk of integration issues.

Subsystem reuse is another aspect that benefits from loose coupling. Smaller modules with less complex interfaces are more straightforward to reuse than larger, more complex modules. This reuse extends beyond the physical components to include testing, documentation, system-level interactions, and reliability-related learning. In software development, this might involve reusing code libraries or frameworks that have proven stable and efficient in previous applications.

An example from the software industry could be a company using a modular design approach for their web application. Each module, such as user authentication, data processing, or user interface, is developed independently with stable interfaces. This allows different teams to work on each module simultaneously, significantly reducing overall development time. Additionally, if a particular module, like a user authentication system, has been previously developed and tested, it can be reused in new applications, saving time and resources.

This software development approach accelerates the development process and enhances the final product’s quality and reliability by ensuring that each subsystem is thoroughly tested and validated independently before integration.

Batch Size Management

Managing batch size involves seven principles: transport batch roles, physical proximity value, infrastructure importance, batch content, bottleneck reduction, and dynamic batch size.

The Importance of Transport Batches

Transport batch size is vital in software development as it enables overlapping activities for faster cycle times and accelerates feedback crucial for product refinement.

In software development, similar to manufacturing, there’s a distinction between two types of batch sizes: production and transport.

The production batch size refers to the work completed in one set-up, like running a suite of tests without interruption.
Transport batch size deals with the amount of information or results transferred at once to the next stage in the development process.

The economic optimum for each batch size varies.

For production, it’s influenced by the setup time,
For transport, the economic optimum batch size is determined by the fixed costs of transferring information.

For example, in a software testing scenario, the production batch might involve running a large number of tests uninterrupted. The transport batch would then be the number of test results transferred in one go to the next stage, like the development team or quality assurance.

Transport batches hold greater significance in software development for two main reasons.

Small transport batches allow for overlapping development stages, reducing cycle times. This is particularly beneficial in a fast-paced development environment where time-to-market is critical.
Small transport batches enhance the feedback mechanism. Rapid and frequent feedback is vital in software development, enabling teams to quickly identify and address issues, refine features, and ensure the product meets user needs effectively.

Examples of Transport Batches

Code Commits: Smaller sets of code changes committed to a version control system before being reviewed and merged into a main branch. These commits allow for easier tracking of changes and more manageable code reviews.
Pull Requests/Merge Requests: Bundles of code changes submitted for peer review before integration. These requests facilitate the review of smaller, more digestible chunks of code, improving code quality and ease of integration.
Feature Branches: Separate branches in a version control system where individual features or bug fixes are developed before merging into the main codebase. This approach allows for isolated development and testing of specific functionalities.
Incremental Builds: Smaller, more frequent builds of the software, often as part of a continuous integration process. These builds allow for early detection of integration issues and faster feedback on system stability.
Microservices Deployments: In a microservices architecture, each microservice is developed, deployed, and updated independently. This results in smaller, more frequent deployments, which are easier to manage and roll back if necessary.
Test Results: Transmitting the results of automated tests in smaller batches for quicker analysis and response. This approach allows for faster identification and resolution of issues.
Feature Flags/Toggles: Releasing new features behind feature flags or toggles, which can be enabled for specific user segments or environments. This method allows for controlled, incremental exposure of new features.
Beta Releases/User Testing Feedback: Providing early versions of software to a limited user group and gathering feedback. This feedback is then used to make improvements before a broader release.

Proximity’s Role in Small Batch Sizes

Proximity in software development teams enables small-batch communication, fostering real-time, synchronous feedback and reducing delays inherent in dispersed teams. Proximity in distributed teams involves using technology to facilitate small-batch communication, ensuring real-time feedback and collaboration efficiency.

Despite the physical distance, achieving a sense of proximity is crucial for efficient and effective communication, resembling the benefits of colocation. This proximity is no longer about physical closeness but creating an environment of immediate, synchronous communication through technology.

Real-time collaborative tools, video conferencing software, and instant messaging platforms enable teams to communicate in smaller, more frequent batches, akin to face-to-face interactions. For instance, instant messaging apps allow quick exchanges of ideas and feedback, mirroring the immediacy of in-person conversations. Video conferencing bridges the gap further, allowing for real-time discussions and nonverbal cues, essential for clear understanding and rapport building.
Collaborative platforms and integrated development environments (IDEs) also contribute significantly. They allow multiple team members to work on the same piece of code or document simultaneously, providing a seamless experience that mimics working side by side. These platforms often include features for real-time feedback and annotations, further enhancing the collaborative experience.
Agile project management tools facilitate the management of smaller batches of work, enabling teams to track progress, prioritize tasks, and respond to changes swiftly. These tools often feature dashboards that offer a comprehensive view of the project’s status, fostering transparency and keeping everyone on the same page.
Regular check-ins and virtual team-building activities support a culture of proximity in a distributed setting. These ensure ongoing communication and help build team cohesion and a sense of belonging, which are often challenges in a distributed environment.

High Release Frequency

In Agile software development, high release frequency means breaking down the development process into smaller phases, leading to regular updates and feature releases. This strategy minimizes development queues and accelerates market feedback, enhancing efficiency and responsiveness.

In traditional product development, extensive features are developed over long periods, leading to rare product updates and lengthy development cycles. Like large production lot sizes in manufacturing, this approach often results in schedule overloads and delayed market responses.

Adopting high release frequency in software development counters these issues. This involves segmenting the development process into smaller, manageable phases, each concentrating on a few features or updates, enabling frequent releases.

Benefits of high release frequency include:

Rapid Market Feedback: Regular releases provide immediate user feedback, allowing teams to swiftly adapt and enhance the product.
Shorter Development Queues: Smaller development phases lead to reduced queues, ensuring faster task completion and delivery.
Effective Task Sequencing: High release frequency allows for strategic task sequencing, balancing complex and simpler tasks. This prevents the build-up of variances seen in prolonged complex feature development.
Negative Covariances in Workflow: Alternating between simpler and complex jobs creates negative covariances in the workflow, reducing bottlenecks and improving efficiency.
Flexible Scheduling: High release frequency offers more adaptability in scheduling tasks, especially in uncertain conditions. Methods like round-robin scheduling can be more effectively used, allowing teams to manage resources and priorities dynamically.

Infrastructure and Small Batch Efficiency

Good infrastructure in software development enables efficient small-batch processing by reducing transaction costs and allowing concurrent batch stages.

In software development, the infrastructure is crucial in efficiently handling small batches. This involves two key aspects:

Reduction of Transaction Costs:
- Automation, particularly in test cycles, is foundational. Daily build and test cycles, underpinned by test automation, allow for smaller test batches.
- This leads to a virtuous cycle: smaller batches necessitate more frequent batches, which justifies further investment in automation.
Concurrent Batch Stages:
- A robust infrastructure allows different batches to simultaneously be at various stages of completion.
- For instance, testing subsystems independently before the entire system is ready requires adequate testbeds, reducing dependency and coupling between batches.
- Such infrastructure acts as a scaffold, permitting independent progression of subsystems.

However, robust infrastructure is not universally adopted due to its associated costs. Companies often prefer system-level testing, as it seems more economical initially:

System-level tests, appearing comprehensive and low in cost, create an illusion of being more economical than subsystem tests.
However, this ignores the fact that system tests occur on the critical path, increasing the cost of delay.
Feedback from system tests comes late in the development cycle, elevating the cost of making changes.

To overcome this misconception, it’s essential to justify infrastructure investment through an economic framework, focusing on the overall economic consequences, particularly the benefits in cycle time. This approach helps break free from the traditional trap of preferring system-level testing. It moves towards a more efficient and economically sound practice of handling small batches through solid infrastructure.

Maximizing Value with Strategic Batch Sequencing

Batch sequencing adds value most cheaply by prioritizing activities that offer maximum benefit for minimal cost and risk.

Shifting to smaller batches in software development improves economic outcomes by allowing strategic work sequencing. This principle, known as “batch content,” is vital in managing investment and risk. In a software context, consider a development project with a high-risk module (Module 1) and a low-risk, high-cost module (Module 2). If Module 1, the high-risk part, is addressed first, the expected cost is lower, and the investment risk is minimized. This approach contrasts with manufacturing, where such sequencing flexibility is limited.

In software development, the principle applies by prioritizing tasks that control cost or risk. For example, if a specific feature or technology is a significant cost driver, focusing on that element first can reduce overall costs. Alternatively, if a component has a long lead time, starting with it eases the project’s critical path, speeding up delivery. The key is to identify and sequence the activities that maximize value and reduce risk, ensuring the least investment is exposed to potential failure.

Reduce Batch Size Before Addressing Bottlenecks

In software development, reducing batch size is the first step to managing queues and bottlenecks, often revealing sufficient existing capacity.

In software development, the initial focus should be reducing batch size rather than increasing capacity at bottlenecks. This approach stems from the understanding that smaller batches reduce variability and often reveal that existing capacity is adequate. For example, instead of increasing the number of developers (attacking the bottleneck), breaking down tasks into smaller, manageable batches is more effective in a software team. This reduces the complexity and variability of tasks, leading to more efficient handling of workloads.

In contrast to manufacturing, software development bottlenecks are stochastic and physically mobile, making them challenging to identify and resolve permanently. Reducing batch size, therefore, becomes a more effective strategy. It allows for more flexibility and adaptability in managing workloads, leading to smoother workflows and reduced queues. By prioritizing batch size reduction, software teams can achieve greater efficiency without necessarily increasing resource allocation, making it a cost-effective and practical solution.

Adjusting Batch Size Dynamically

In software development, dynamically adjusting batch size in response to evolving economic factors ensures efficiency and timely feedback.

Dynamic batch size adjustment in software development is crucial for responding effectively to changing economic factors. Initially, when risk and the value of rapid feedback are high, small batch sizes are preferable for quick iteration and risk mitigation. As a project progresses and the value of rapid feedback decreases while transaction costs increase, larger batch sizes become more economically viable. This concept contrasts with manufacturing, where stable economic factors make batch sizes relatively static.

In software development, holding and fixed costs vary over time, necessitating adjustments in batch size. For example, during the early stages of software development, frequent small tests are beneficial for quickly gathering and reacting to feedback, as information is more valuable at this stage. As the software matures and the defect discovery rate decreases, increasing the batch size for testing becomes practical, as the cost of delaying feedback is lower. This approach ensures that the software development process is continuously optimized for efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and timely delivery of a quality product.

Sources of Big Batches in Software Development

Large batches in software development arise from various sources, requiring awareness and training to identify and address effectively.

Limiting Scope to Optimize Batch Size

Excessive scope in software development leads to complexity and delays; the solution limits scope and breaks work into smaller, manageable segments.

In software development, a primary cause of large batches is the tendency to include more features or scope than necessary. This excessive scope can initiate a cycle of delays and complexity, often exacerbating the issue. As development time extends, there is a tendency to add more features, further complicating and delaying the process. This is a “death spiral” where increasing scope leads to prolonged timelines and escalating complexity.

To counter this, adopting a small batch size approach is effective. This involves deliberately limiting the scope of software initiatives, focusing on a few key improvements or features per release. By doing so, the software remains compelling without unnecessary complexity. Additionally, breaking down more significant software initiatives into a series of smaller, more manageable segments significantly reduces the risk of total failure. It helps maintain a steady, manageable pace of development.

Using Incremental Funding to Optimize Batch Size

Project funding in large sums increases risk and leads to bigger batches; smaller, incremental funding rounds are more effective in managing risk and complexity.

In software development, a significant cause of large batches is how projects are funded. Typically, projects are conceived and funded as a single large batch, requesting substantial investment. This approach inherently carries high risk, leading to the requirement for extensive analysis and justification. The effort involved in securing funding creates a bias towards larger transactions, as securing a large amount of funding requires almost the same effort as securing a smaller amount.

A practical alternative is to fund projects in smaller, incremental stages, akin to the venture capitalist model. This approach allows for iterative development, where each stage is funded based on the information and progress from the previous stage. It enables decision-making with better information, shorter time horizons, and less risk in each funding increment. This method contrasts with the traditional corporate practice of mitigating risk through extensive analysis and instead uses funding batch size as a strategic tool to control risk.

Overlapping Project Phases to Optimize Batch Sizes

Unlike traditional gated phase approaches that lead to maximum batch sizes and delays, overlapping phases in software development reduce batch sizes and cycle times.

The prevalent use of phase gates in software development, where one phase must be completed before the next begins, often leads to large batch sizes. When a project is divided into distinct phases with no overlap, the work transferred from one phase to the next represents the entirety of the previous phase’s work. This approach results in the largest possible batch sizes, the longest cycle times, and significant delays in feedback between phases.

However, this method is often so impractical that engineers bypass it through informal processes, allowing phase overlap. Contrary to assumptions, overlapping phases can effectively manage risk without using large batch sizes. For example, instead of blocking all purchasing until a specific phase is completed, setting a spending limit during the design phase can control risks while allowing progress. Generally, transferring authority in smaller increments rather than in a single, large batch is more efficient and reduces cycle time.

Using Progressive Requirements Definition to Optimize Batch Sizes

Defining all requirements upfront in software development leads to large batches and delays; progressively locking down requirements enhances agility and design quality.

A common batch size issue in software development attempts to define 100 percent of the requirements at the project’s outset. This practice transfers the entire requirement set to the design phase in one large batch, leading to the longest possible cycle times and putting requirement definition on the critical path for an extended duration. This approach often results in inferior designs, hindering the feedback loop essential for understanding the technological limitations and the cost implications of requested features.

A more effective method involves beginning the design process before finalizing all specifications, allowing for a feedback loop that informs optimal trade-offs between feature cost and value. Implementing smaller batches by progressively locking down requirements is practical. This means freezing some requirements before others, prioritizing those engineering needs first. Avoiding the grouping of all requirements into a single large batch prevents the slowest requirement from delaying the entire process.

Using Agile Planning Principles to Optimize Batch Sizes

Agile software development planning involves high-level initial and detailed short-term plans, reducing large batches, and adapting to new information effectively.

In software development, traditional planning methods often involve creating a detailed plan for the entire project at its commencement. This approach forces planning at a long time horizon, where accuracy in forecasting is challenging and often results in frequent and substantial plan revisions. A more effective alternative is to combine high-level planning for the entire project with detailed planning limited to shorter time horizons. This method benefits from the ‘variability pooling effect,’ where grouped tasks in high-level planning exhibit lower variability. Detailed planning, being more reliable when the time horizon is short, allows for greater accuracy and the incorporation of recent information.

This agile planning approach is akin to navigating in fog, planning in detail only for the immediate path ahead. Further planning is undertaken as the project progresses and more information becomes available. This method ensures that planning is an ongoing process, developed in small batches, continually updated with fresh information and enhanced by knowledge gained along the way.

Leveraging Testing to Optimize Batch Sizes

In software development, frequent testing optimizes batch sizes by reducing risk and avoiding large development expenses associated with extensive rework.

Testing is a critical area in software development where adopting small batch sizes has shown significant benefits. Moving from infrequent, large-scale testing cycles (e.g., every 60 days) to more frequent, smaller ones (e.g., daily) can dramatically improve a product’s development process. This approach allows for early identification and resolution of issues, reducing the risk and cost associated with large-scale errors found late in the development cycle.

For instance, testing high-risk subsystems early in development, even before lower-risk components are fully defined, can significantly lower overall project risk. This strategy avoids committing extensive resources and time to development paths that may require substantial changes following late-stage testing. By incorporating regular and frequent testing into the development process, teams can address issues promptly, optimize resource allocation, and consistently focus on quality throughout the software development lifecycle.

Capital Spending and Batch Size Reduction

Capital spending in smaller batches effectively controls risk and speeds up processes.

Traditionally managed with comprehensive requests, capital spending often involves extensive paperwork and management levels, resulting in delays. Companies typically avoid multiple requests for the same initiative due to perceptions of incompetence or deceit. However, some organizations have shifted to releasing capital in smaller batches. This approach significantly reduces the risk associated with significant capital commitments and allows for a more agile response to changes in project requirements.

For instance, some companies allow design teams to utilize a portion of their capital budget before completing design verification. This method minimizes capital risk while ensuring that critical path items are not delayed. Large batch sizes in traditional capital spending models necessitate minimizing errors due to high stakes, leading to prolonged approval processes. In contrast, smaller batch sizes inherently limit downside risk, enabling companies to tolerate a higher probability of failure while maintaining financial control. Therefore, small batch sizes are an effective tool for managing risk.

In the context of drawing release processes, the traditional approach releases a drawing entirely, treating it as a single batch. This all-or-nothing method leads to the maximum theoretical cycle time. A more efficient method involves releasing critical information necessary for downstream processes first. For example, a company might execute a tooling release on drawings before the final machining release. This approach stabilizes essential dimensions for tool design, reducing risk and expediting the overall process.

Contact Us

</p>

agility at scale