Using agile in a startup

Posted on April 24, 2016

This post is a follow-up to my previous post on designing an application in Haskell and part of a series of post I intend to write that reflect on my experience as CTO of Haskell-based startup. Whereas the previous post was very technical, focusing on what we built, this one focuses on how we built it: Processes, methods and tools we used, how the team was built and how it interacts on a daily basis, which problems we encountered and how we solved them (or not)… As before I have tried to be as honest as possible, highlighting both what worked and what did not work so well.

Coming from an Agile background it is no surprise that I consciously tried to reuse the knowledge and tools I knew from previous implementations of Scrum, eXtreme Programming or Kanban. One of the lesson learned during the past year is that Agile needs some serious overhauling to be applied within a startup setting, even more so when the team is distributed. In the conclusion I try to draw on this experience to hint at some trails I would like to explore in the future.

A Bit of Context

I started working on Capital Match at the end of August 2014. The first commit in the git repository of the application is dated on Wednesday, 20th of August 2014. I worked in the background for a couple of months, mostly to setup the infrastructure, flex my muscles on Haskell, explore the business domain space.

I met physically my co-founder in October. At that time I was still working alone but I already had a working solution that was deployed and “usable”, for some definition of usable. Willem van den Ende joined me to develop the application to production stage at the end of October and brought with him lot of XP and DevOps experience. We were joined by another developer at the beginning of March but this employment lasted only a month.

We went live on the 20th of March, one month after the initial target set in December. The tech team is now 4 people, including me, all of which are mainly developers. We do not have a dedicated operations team and the tech team is responsible for both developing new features and maintaining the application in good operational conditions.


Project Planning

We started using from November to plan the go-live, first without then with spring planning. It was a good thing to explain to non-tech people we can deliver so much in a period. We quickly settled on 1 week sprints and it took us a while to get to some form of regularity and cadence, never really get to smooth release and meaningful Story Points values. A month or so after go-live we switched to a kanban style process which is not really well supported by taiga.

It seems people are having a hard time understanding SP, and when they understand they start trying to game it and discuss evaluations. It fairly quickly gets back to “when will it be done?” and “can’t we really do it faster?” and “what if we did XX?” questions… Smart people used to work with figures are prone to get to the conclusion figures are acutally measuring output and value and then we will use those figures to measure success.

We dropped formal estimates, even before golive: what’s done is done, when it is not done it is not done. In order to cope with unrealistic expectations and requirements we strived hard to make everything visible, deploy very quickly and allow people to test easily, work in baby steps… in other words reduce the length of the feedback loop. We don’t provide estimates anymore, and people don’t ask for them, except in very broad terms for high-level features which we (I) estimate as S/M/L or some combination thereof.

People also had a hard time using taiga (and I am not sure it would have been better with any other tool…): Response is a bit slow, most of the things don’t make sense for them, they don’t follow really tickets and comments on them… nor do they care much about tracking SPs progress.

So we finally switched to using plain trello:

We currently use 2 boards:

Product Development

I wrote a “walking skeleton” in a month or so, starting from initial idea, while my partner was sorting out the business side of things and trying to find seed investors in the project. This walking skeleton was, well, very skeletal, being able to handle only very basic scenario: register borrower/investor, create new simple, loan, commit funding to loan then accept loan.

When go live started to come close, business people got scared and wanted to go into command and control mode, and wanted to go into the following process:

I used the initial provided design documet to slice everything into small stories with estimates and put that into Taiga, then we started working on it following the aforementioned process. After 1-2 weeks it became obvious to everybody we would not be able to deliver everything that has been designed in excruciating details, because we simply could not code fast enough. Something like about 40-50% only of the designed features were actually shipped on go-live. Hence we reverted to priority-based scheduling and Dimensional planning with one week sprints and a target release date.

At some early stage I tried to use Story mapping, maintaining a map of the software’s features using MindMup a hosted mind-mapping application:

A fragment of Capital Match’s Story Map

The idea was that we would represent the whole process in a map, distinguishing manual/automated parts and filling the leaves with actually available features. However this did not gel and people never get accustomed to use that representation of the software, so I quickly stopped maintaining it.

Programming Practices

Pair Programming

We started doing remote pairing with Willem and we still try to do it on a regular basis. Remote pairing works really fine if the network has no hiccup. We have the following simple setting:

I really like pair programming but I found its remote version is more exhausting than its face to face counterpart. It requires more focus and engagement because it is very easy to get distracted as your partner is not there to snoop over your shoulder and see you are actually browsing your emails or twitter. And the lower fidelity communication requires even more focus. However we found that timezone differences forced us to make something like Deferred Pairing: I start some work in France, using slack as a stream of consciousness, pushing code to github repository, then I go to sleep. In the middle of the night someone in Asia picks up where I left code and continue working on it till we manage to have some time overlap. Then we can pair for a couple of hours if needed, and restart the whole cycle.

Development Automation

Continuous Integration is core practice of XP and we embraced it fully from the onset of the project in the form of continous deployment: Each code change’s integration in the existing codebase is checked as soon as the code is published to be available for the whole team to use. Continuous should of course be understood in the mathematical sense, e.g. opposite of discrete: You are able to deploy at any point in time, not at certain gateways or releases milestones. I plan to provide more details in another blog post but practically speaking this means:

This implies managing infrastructure, e.g. VMs, containers, processes and would not be possible without strong automation: Infrastructure as Code and DevOps everywhere, the slogan is: Automate all the things!

Continuous Integration is really our most important tool for maintaining cohesion in the team and integrity of the software: Any commit pushed to CI triggers whole chain of build down to the point we obtain a deployable application container

Test Driven Development

I have already written on TDD and how much I loved it: To me TDD is THE core practice of XP and its main contribution to the advance of software development. Even in a startup setting I don’t think we made a lot of compromise on writing tests, but the amount of tests that need to be written in a strongly-typed language like Haskell is less than what you would need to write in Ruby or even Java.

Our automated tests are currently divided into 4 types:


On Being Remote

Working remotely has been an integral part of the organization since the beginning. We are 6-7 hours apart, e.g. it is afternoon in Singapore when I wake up. This means we have about 3-4 hours of overlap, but we span 16-17 hours of wall clock time. Here are some features that are entailed by being remote:

There is a great post about Remote First culture: which you should read, along with 37 Signal’s Remote. They both emphasizes the fact that working remotely works if and only if the whole organisation is built around this premise. Think as a counter-example organisations that have a handful of offices which need to work distributedly. Distribution was an afterthought, something that came up as a constraint because of mergers, and no amount of tooling can make that kind of culture work.

Remote work can help reduce stress, especially in startups: Being remote means you can simply remove pressure from business people when it becomes too heavy. It can also help minimizes personality clash, cool down interactions. Being face-to-face increases cues and hints about the other person’s feelings but is also a great way to generate stress and emotions. The counterparty is trust: People at the other side of the world trust you to do what needs to be done


The team is currently very small but hiring has been and will stay a team matter. Because we use a niche technology our recruitment is necessarily international and we must be prepared to recruit and work remotely, and actually I was recruited as co-founder remotely…

Our hiring process is currently quite simple:

Applying agile principles to hiring means that we are ready to experiment for a week or a month, reflect and improve, and possibly stop early (this occured already once). Doing this remotely also means more flexibility and more risks:

Hiring is one of those (numerous) areas where I see a lot of improvements and where being remote is a game changer.


Lessons learnt are most interesting if you can leverage them into some form of theoretical knowledge that can be turned into useful guidelines for future decisions. This section tries to extract some possibly useful insights and generalisations from this limited experience, which I can summarize in three points:

The Software Development Project Fallacy

There is not a dearth of software development project management methods, whether Agile or not: Kanban, Scrum, RUP, Waterfall, V, W, Design Controls… And symetrically there are quite a few methods targeted at managing operations and support in IT, like ITIL, although I am much less familiar with those. The fact is they are all inspired by the logic of manufactured goods design and production where:

  1. The good undertakes a series of transformations, from design to production, up to the point it is ready for consumption by the “public”,
  2. Where it falls into the hands of another group of people which is responsible for maintenance or end-users support.

If we focus on Scrum alone, we find the core artifact to be the sprint and a number of sprints ultimately leading to a release. But sprints, and for that matter any form of time-constrained activity, are inherently exhausting and ultimately unsustainable, hence the mutiplications of hardening sprints, release sprints, sprint 0… which are all attempts to depart from the sprint/release straightjacket. What Scrum and even XP which is dearer to my heart misses is the Operations part of a system

Scrum is a management and control process that cuts through complexity to focus on building software that meets business needs. Management and teams are able to get their hands around the requirements and technologies, never let go, and deliver working software, incrementally and empirically.

Scrum itself is a simple framework for effective team collaboration on complex software projects.

The way of thinking this methods promote is inherently constrained by a time-bound horizon: The moment the product will be considered “finished” and leave the organisation that produced it, hence the emphasis of the release. Lets remember that Deliver3 also means give birth and bears with it the idea that something we have been fostering for months is freed from our control, which also suggests we are freeing ourselves of it. Deliver’s substantive is deliverance… The release becomes the horizon of the team and with it comes relief, and then we move on to something else.

What I have learnt over the years but even more so over the past months working on this project is the importance of evaluating your capability to deliver features against your capability to maintain your software and make it able to sustain more change in the future. Viewing software systems solely under the angle of projects leads to a bias, from all persons involved, towards delivering more under time pressure which is the biggest source of errors. When your horizon is time constrained you cannot pay enough attention to the small warnings that will lead to big failures.

Technology matters

“The technology, stupid.”

liberally adapted from James Carville

Obviously a lot of the things we do are made possible thanks to technology:

But I do think that our particular technology stack (e.g. Haskell) choice has a deep impact in enabling this distributed agile style of working:

Technology is not neutral. As explained by Bruno Latour, technology is embodied into technical beings whose needs must be adressed in specific ways and with whom we need to interact in specific ways. Technology shapes our worldview and the way we work in a lot of different and sometimes surprising ways. But it is always worthwhile to think about it beforehand…

From Project to System

My experience suggests a different approach which does not reject the benefits of iterative software development but makes it part of a bigger process which also encompasses the need for periods of reflection and calm. We should acknowledge the duality (at least) in our processes:

Agile methods are good at channelling the intensity of period I through a simple process but they are much less appropriate for period II which is mostly characterized by the absence of definite goal(s). This explains the rise of “hybrid” approaches and the success of Kanban which offers a much more appropriate framework to handle period II work (and conversely is not very well suited to period I…). This also explains the moderate success (at best) Agile methods have with operations or highly regulated settings.

There is a lot to get inspired from the way Highly Reliable Organisations work and the numerous research studies that have been written about those organisations. I was also personally heavily influenced by “Les décisions absurdes” which describes the mechanics of group thinking and how they can lead to catastrophic failures. HRO studies show that those organisations which must be reliable actually acknowledge the existence of those two modes of operations. The best such organisations know how to take advantage of routine mode (what I call Period II) to become better when the need arises to go into intense mode or Period I.

Think of those analogies:

The content of this post was used to present a session at Agile Tour Nantes 2015: Thanks to the organisers for having accepted that talk.

Thanks to Anne Caron-Perlon for her very helpful comments and remarks.

Thanks to Capital Match Team for those exciting 2 years.

  1. It seems that tmate provides even better support for that at the expense of having to setup a centralised server for people to log in.↩︎

  2. Looks like the smart people at /ut7 have given a name to this: They call it La bassine and apparently this has been developed as part of work on project for Deliverous↩︎

  3. This comes from the French Délivrer which can be translated to get rid of, relieve, set free↩︎

  4. Back in the 90s or even early 2000s you would have to be either a large corporation, a university or deep hacker group to be able to work distributedly in real time↩︎