Skip to main content

DevOps at Microsoft- a successful transformation story

When Microsoft started our own DevOps journey, we quickly realized that our transformation to DevOps would have broad organizational impact. Every DevOps conversation needs to focus equally on people, processes, and tools to ensure a successful transformation.

Our DevOps journey began by gradually changing the way we work. For example, on the people front, we were able to reduce team sizes from over 20 members to 8-12 members, and we also shifted from working in private offices to working in team rooms. The DevOps journey also allowed us to flatten our hierarchy over time. Smaller teams working in a more collaborative environment increased our ability to more effectively present, test, and implement solutions more quickly.

From a process perspective, we changed from our established 4-6-month milestones to 3-week sprints with features shipped upon the conclusion of every sprint, instead of annual shipments. With the sprint format established, we also transitioned from lengthy planning cycles to a continuous planning and learning cycle. Ultimately, this journey allowed Microsoft to complete one of the most important mindset changes—success is now determined by user satisfaction as opposed to installation numbers.
Lastly, our DevOps journey changed the tools we used. While we once relied on creating time-intensive 100-page spec documents, we now create agile mockups in PowerPoint. Azure DevOps provided the tools we needed to streamline our work process, to share our ideas with the right audience, and to change the way we thought about our work. Over time, we were able to introduce broad mindset changes that our organization now actively embraces and lives every day. These changes have improved our organization and the way we work.


Popular posts from this blog

PDCA & SCRUM (or Agile); Why is it important?

The PDCA (Plan DO Check Act) cycle was made popular by Dr. W. Edwards Deming. This is a scientific cyclic process which can be used to improve the process (or product). This is cyclic in nature and usually time boxed. Plan  This is the first stage of the process. During this step the team discusses the objectives, the process and the clear conditions of exit (conditions of acceptance). This stage sets the measurable and achievable goals for the team. DO Team works together to achieve the objective set in the planning phase. Team works with the set of agreed process. Check Once the implantation is done team regroups and verifies the output and compares it to the agreed conditions of acceptance decided during the planning phase. The deviation, if any, is noted down. ACT If any deviation in planned tasks is observed during the Check stage, a root cause analysis is conducted. Team brainstorms and identifies the changes required to prevent such deviations in future. Team also

Why is potentially shippable product quality important

Agile teams work in iterations. During this period, they are supposed to work on product increments which can be “delivered” at the end of iteration. But how you know that the correct product was delivered? Many teams have different kinds of acceptance criteria and Definition of Done (DoD). But in many cases, this “done” is not the real “done” there might be some testing pending, some integration or review pending or anything else which prevents the actual use of the product increment. Many of these teams will need additional iterations to finish hardening their products. Many teams will implement different types of “gates” or approval steps to move to next stage. The free flow of product will be interrupted. They might end up doing mini waterfall within their agile process. Many don’t even realize this. This results in poor quality and requires additional effort to “harden” the product. Potentially Shippable Product increment The acceptance criteria and DoD should be modified

Product Backlog: Should you write everything in user story format?

I like user stories a lot. They help everyone talk the same language and results in a better product. User story alone does not constitute product requirement. User story is supposed to be a place holder for discussion which should happen between the team, Product Owner and the customer. This discussion result in a common understanding which along with the user story content is the product requirement. This format captures the essence of requirement without confusing the readers User Story is only one of the many different ways in which requirements can be represented. This is not mandatory in any Agile “process”. But many have made this mandatory. I have seen many spending countless hours trying to write the requirements in user story format when they could have easily written that in simple one-line sentence in few minutes.   I have seen team members refusing to even discuss the requirement until product owner rewrote the requirement in user story format. Once I