Skip to main content

Lego City Police station construction project


I just today completed the Lego City Police station construction project. Off budget to start with, and a bit late of schedule.

While doing it, I quickly noticed some similarities to a normal construction project, in my world a software system construction (or acquisition) project that is. Thought to write them up, as they felt kinda funny.


A meeting with the dev lead and the product owner
First of all, the whole thing would have been a lot easier to build without the constant pressure by the product owner...

Secondly I gotta hand it to the Lego architect - the whole thing was really nicely packed and arranged, the building instructions were fantastic, and the pieces and puzzles clearly thought through. So building something with this kind of a fantastic specification, was rather easy even though it's over twenty years I've last done something this big with Legos. Without the spec, or even worse with an incorrect one, it would have been sheer hell.

Third similarity: Some developers are better (or have more experience) than others, some are quicker and sloppier, some slower and more careful. Although I think with our dev team my wife was quick and careful and I was slow and sloppy.. Team work wasn't that easy either, but it seemed to go well after we established some kind of roles and responsibilities.

Fourth similarity: When a bug was found it usually (not always) was a lot easier to fix if found early, compared to a one found late having many layers already built on top of it. Also the rework caused by this was really frustrating. There were differences also in the ways and timelines of finding the bugs - most were quickly noticed and immediately fixed, but some were harder to spot early and were only noticed by some mysterious extra pieces, or due to integration issues with new layers.

In the end everybody involved in the project was so tired with the whole thing that nobody really wanted to use it anymore (is that a fifth one?). But it looks pretty nice! Hopefully the product owner will still grow into it..

Lego City police station - large

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Testers doing test automation - is that the most important thing for you to do right now?

I've been thinking quite a lot about tester's moving to do test automation.  Lately beause of these three things: 1.  European testing conference , a great testing conference I attended couple of weeks ago. It is very cool due to many things; the way the speakers get compensated, the focus on the conferring side of conferences making it very easy for people to discuss stuff, the way the talks are chosen, and because there are also a lot of developers joining. So anyway when I was talking with several of the attendees, it was a bit strange how it was easier for me to talk about the product development as a whole with the developers, where as with the testers it more naturally moved into talk of automation and tools. Also on the open space, I think the majority of the topics pitched was automation or tool related. And quite little on the process or on the customer facing side of product development.  2. In my company there are a lot of different products and...
3 comments
Read more

Testing drunk

(My first blog writing ever.) I've been thinking a long time that it's funny how many bugs I find by accident. Try to do something, make a mistake and boom - a bug is found.  Making the mistakes intentionally doesn't quite work - that's why they are called accidents I guess.. So I've thought of ways to make myself more prone to accidents, coming up with an apparent one; testing drunk. TUI (testing under the influence). So this I gotta try. More to come on that later.
3 comments
Read more

Six reasons why testers should do code reviews

I have had quite a lot of discussions about code reviews. Quite many also with testers, by which I have understood that many do not do those. I will not start arguing here on whether code reviews are good/important or not. But I will list a few things why I think testers would benefit of doing them. 1. Code is the only documentation that is up to date . If you really want to know how something really functions, you want to be able to see and read the code. 2. Knowing more about the thing done enables you to do better testing . You can spot things that you should definitely test, and things that you probably don't need to test that much. Like extra things added by coder, usage&modifications of existing functions, data types, etc. And to arguments thinking that one loses their "independence" as a tester by knowing too much, I would worry a lot less about that than about testing stuff that you have no idea on how it has been built. 3. Improve logging . I obse...
2 comments
Read more