Tag: DDD

DDD is not a goal but a means

DDD (Domain-Driven Design) is “only” one essential building block that promises evolutionary software, a software that won’t let you down in a few years or after a few thousand lines of code.

That’s it. I could stop here, the title and this short description tell everything. But is this true, can everybody reading this relate to that? Is it helpful? I don’t think so.

During the last year, I often heard the question “how can I introduce DDD in my company?” – mostly meaning “in my dev team”. It is time to answer this question now.

Misconception number 1: introducing DDD as a goal

Misconception number 2: DDD is a dev thing, and after the devs “fix this” by applying all the patterns, all problems will disappear – and they will live happily ever after …

Let’s imagine a successful company sitting already on 1m lines of code, a lot of customers, a few teams, possibly working in silos, having frontend and backend development split. Or a younger company but with the same organization, the only difference is the effort needed to change things. This company has an agile development process (with sprints and “stories” and one Product Owner pro team etc.), but they observe that every new feature takes longer and longer. A few devs have read about DDD, read the Blue Book, and convinced one of the backend teams to introduce DDD. The company agrees to let them do it because they hope that everything will be easy and fast and bug-free afterwards. So everybody is happy 😊

Fast-forward a few months: now we are at the point when the source code owned by that team was restructured nicely, with value types, entities, aggregates. Ok, the Rest API is unchanged because the frontend team is already using it and they were not involved. But the business logic is cleaned up. The names, the language were defined by the devs – DDD is a dev thing, isn’t it? The development process didn’t change either: they get requirements to implement things without including anything built by the frontend team, the part the customer sees. For this reason, the refinements are not about customer needs but API calls and frameworks – just like before the rework towards DDD.

JIRA 1234: Please add this new flag “withVAT” to the API call generating the invoice (sounds familiar?)

What is new? Frustration: the PO does not know why the devs are asking for more and more details, and the developers don’t understand why the PO does not get the meaning of aggregates and value types, etc.

Refinement: “we cannot add it to that API call, the VAT decision belongs to another aggregate! ;( ”

And what else is new? Maintaining those API routes becomes harder and harder because they do not follow the business structure but are kept as an Anticorruption Layer between the frontend and backend (team 😉).

I am sorry if I am disappointing you, it is not my intention. It is the opposite actually: to save you from this frustration after having invested so much energy and maybe extra hours to get everything perfect.

What is DDD: a paradigm, a rule set that helps you to build evolutionary software. Like Mathias Verraes says

This can only be achieved if DDD stops being a “dev-stuff” and starts leading to a common way to discuss features, behaviours, and capabilities.

And why not? DDD means not only aggregates and value types; the essential component is the ubiquitous language used in your domain by the business people, by the customer. And apropos customer: DDD aims to solve the customer’s problems and be known in the teams applying DDD. Why not create a whole team handling those needs, from the UI (or even UX) to the delivery? (this move would also change the “somehow agile” development process in a real one, based on feedback and experiments instead of a prepared backlog covering the next three months)

We live in a great time: the accumulated knowledge and the evolution of the software industry in the last 25 years give us anything we need to build resilient, sustainable and maintainable software that won’t “die” slowly if we are careful and happy to learn. What do we need?

  1. Visual modelling techniques to discuss and learn the business (like Event Storming, Impact Mapping, etc.)
  2. Crunching and defining stories aiming to solve customer needs, always with the Ubiquitous Language (like User Story Mapping, BDD)
  3. A paradigm to make decisions based on the Business Domain, not on hopes or wishes (strategical DDD to write the right code)
  4. A guide for organizing the teams to achieve good teamwork, less cognitive load and smooth development process (Context Maps from DDD)
  5. Open feedback culture to create psychological safety
  6. A set of patterns to organize the code (DDD again)
  7. A bunch of practices to write the code right: TDD, refactoring, pairing, mob-programming
  8. Trunk-based development (aka Continuous integration) and continuous delivery to reduce the lead time (the time from the idea to the usage, also to the possibility of feedback) and to reduce the MTTR (Mean Time To Recovery)
  9. Mature 3rd party services to fulfil all the other needs when offering digital products. Now we can focus entirely on our business proposal (AWS/Azure & co, Observability, etc.)
  10. The readiness and willingness to learn the business we want to improve and the corresponding company culture supporting this.

This list is my Silver Bullet. All items on it are essential, and all of them exist. Most of them had a significant value for themselves but the sum of them? Wow, they give us a real chance in this rapidly changing world with all its competitors running after our slice of cake.

You Don’t Need To Work In Silos If You Don’t Want To

… but if you do then you should stop reading here. It is Ok for me.

How many of you have built features in backend services which were never used in any application? Or implemented requests in the wrong way because nobody cared to give you the whole story, the whole problem this feature should solve? Or felt demotivated because of the lack of feedback, if that what you do makes an impact, or it was wasted energy and time? How many of you are still working under these unsatisfying circumstances? For those of you is this article.

I did all of this. One case I will never forget: I should implement a feature request resulting in returning some object property as a string. This property was containing a URL, but the feature didn’t say “I need to know how to navigate to X or Y” but “please include the URL X in the result”.

It turned out that another 2 teams used this “string” to build navigation on it or to include it in emails without ever telling me. Why should they? I was done with the feature: it was their turn. Both of them have validated this string, have built URLs with them (using information exclusively owned by the backend service…), etc.

Let me be more explicit:

Failure No. 1: If I would have changed some internals in the backend service, I could’ve broken the UI code without knowing. My colleagues relied on things they had no chance to control. We were dependent on each other without being able to see it.

Failure No. 2: the company paid 3 different developers to write the same validation functions and the customer flow had to pass the same validations 3 times instead of only once. A totally wrong decision, from an economical point of view.

I think that was the moment I decided to change the way we deliver features, the way we work together. This was 6 or 7 years ago and since then I followed the same method to reorganize not only the teams but also the source code. Because one thing is sure: changing one without the other only leads to bigger pains and even more frustration.

Step 1. Visit the “other side” of that wall and learn what they are doing and how they are doing it. You will observe bottlenecks and wasted time and energy in your value stream (the road a feature passes from the idea to the customer)

Step 2. Get the buy-in by the next level in your hierarchy: in most situations (in both cases I were in this situation) you are not the first one noticing these problems, but you could be the first one offering a solution. Grab this chance, don’t hesitate!

Step 3. Remove the wall between the silos: find a good time to make your move, after the biggest project ended or before the next one starts. Don’t wait too long, there always will be unfinished features.

Step 4. This depends on how many team members we are talking about. In both cases, we were around 15 people, and nobody wants stand-ups or even meetings with 15 people! You become even slower and even less capable to take decisions. But this step is important for a few things:

  • both “parties” should learn and understand what the others do, how the parts are connected, what language, concept, design is used to build them
  • all members should understand and accept that it is important to split up in teams – and this is always hard because it means “we have to change”! Developers are – against all expectations – very reluctant to change. Even more reluctant when they realize that they won’t work with their buddies anymore but with some hardly known people they do not really or trust.
  • you and/or your boss, your colleagues, your buddy in this change must start to discover how the domain is shaped, how can the teams being split up – because this will be the next step.

Up to this point you didn’t improve the developer experience, it will become rather worse. What you have improved is the life of the product manager or CTO or whoever brings the requests to the teams: instead of explaining two teams the two parts of a feature (cut in the “middle” between backend and frontend), he/she must explain it only once. At the same time, the Delivery Lead Time (the first key metric in measuring team performance) will become shorter because all the ping-pong between BE and FE can be eliminated before the feature development starts.

After you all spent a longer or shorter time together is time to take the next step: align the organization to the business

Designing Autonomous Services & Teams Together – Nick Tune – KanDDDinsky 2017

The most important part is to find the natural boundaries of the domain and create business teams who OWN this (sub) domains. 

I did this 3 times in all kinds of environments: brownfield monolith or greenfield new biz, it doesn’t matter. Having a monolith as cash cow doesn’t make this change easy of course but it can be made, with discipline and a good plan on how to take over control. (this topic is much to complex to be included in this article)

The last thing which must be said is, when NOT to start this transformation:

  • If you don’t find any fellow to support you. In this case, either the problem isn’t big enough to be felt by the others, or you are in the wrong company and maybe should start to think to transform yourself instead (and leave).
  • If you or your fellow and/or boss aren’t patient people. Changing is hard and should be accompanied carefully and patiently – so that one does not need to repeat it again after even greater frustrations and chaos (was there, saw this :-/ )
  • If you expect that this is all. Because it isn’t: every change toward more transparency – because this is what happens when you break up silos and let others look at the existing solutions – all these changes will make issues transparent. A few of these issues will be technical (like CI/CD, code coupling, infrastructure coupling, etc.). But the hard problems will be missing communication skills and missing trust. Nothing that cannot be solved – but it will take time, that is sure.

If you reach this point, you can start to form an autonomous team: one which not only decides, what to do but also in charge to do it. Working in an environment created by you and your team allows you all to discover and live up to your creativity, to make mistakes and learn from them.

This ownership and responsibility make the difference between somebody hired to type lines of code and somebody solving problems.

What do you think? Could you start this change in your company? What would you need?

Now you know about my experience. I would be really happy to find out yours – here or on twitter.

One last question: what would you like more to read of: how to find the right boundaries or how can your team become a REALLY autonomous team – and how autonomous can that be?