Implementing an Agile Change Control Process

What is Change Control?

Change Control traditionally is a project management process for managing change. The typical method for managing change in a classic PMP project is a Change Control form that is filled out containing the scope of the change, impact to the project, etc. This is then approved and incorporated into the master project plan, charter, etc.



In addition, Change Control processes are used by operations departments to manage the deployment and promotion of code from one environment to another. The Change Control Form provides the documentation for an operations team to deploy, operate and monitor the change.

Change Control and Agile

This traditional view of Change Control is at odds with Agile methodologies for the following reasons:

1. Change is viewed as a non-typical event, e.g. the project was running smoothly until someone threw a change into the project. Agile projects by definition are based on the assumption that changes are typical events and aren't special.

2. Change requests are simply Waterfall designs in miniature. Requirements for the change must be documented up front and analyzed. Stakeholders must approve of changes before they are made with the assumption that requirements, scope, risk, and design can be formally documented ahead of making a code change.

3. Traditional Change Control processes are document heavy. The process is designed as much to capture and document change as it is to make effective decisions. Change control forms are kept around forever with dates and identifiers so that someone could find out who approved a change. In many cases, these are also printed out, resulting in very large binders of paper with signatures for every change.

4. In an agile project, one of the objectives is to flatten the team and reduce hierarchies so that people can more effectively communicate. However, traditional change control processes require specialized knowledge, special powers of approval and a hierarchical command and control structure. Project Managers are usually the writers of change control forms, but then they must get approval from "Stakeholders" who will bless the change.

Here is a good example of a traditional Change Control process - have a look at Bell South's Change Control Process Guide. At 120 pages, it is a great example of how bloated a large formal change control process can get when Project Managers are working in a bureaucratic environment. Just managing the process documentation alone takes a massive investment - just look at the 20 pages of version numbers of this document and you'll see that someone's full-time job must be simply keeping the guide up to date!

Change Control isn't a bad thing - the original objectives behind formal Change Control are actually in line with the objectives of agile methodologies:

1. Define change and anticipate change early instead of leaving it to the end.
2. Providing a process for incorporating change during development of a project.
3. Communicate scope, risks and impacts of a change.
4. Provide the appropriate review and approval process to authorize a change.

It isn't that change control is bad - it's that the evolution of formal project methodologies has led to very bureaucratic, documentation heavy processes. In addition, keep in mind that most of these processes were invented before the incorporation of digital collaboration tools such as email, Wikis, sharepoint, JIRA, Word, etc. and so the typical change control process has artifacts from a non-digital era.

Implementing an Agile Change Control Process

Change Control can be used effectively in an Agile environment if it is sufficiently light weight, non-bureaucratic and collaborative. Here are my recommendations based on what I have seen work effectively on Agile and non-Agile projects:

1. Use an agile methodology such as XP, Crystal, Scrum, etc. that has change management built into its fundamental process. In Scrum, for example, all work is effectively a change and is logged as a "change request" in a work backlog. In XP the changes are logged as User Stories. Iterations allow for changes to happen on a regular basis - they're not special change events.

2. Use a generic task tracking system such as JIRA to log any change. In JIRA, you don't need a separate "bug tracking" system that is different than your change tracking system. In addition, you can take a change all the way from requirements to deployment without re-entering information. You could do the same thing with low tech tools such as Excel or Word simply by having a work log that is updated regularly.

3. If you have specific legal or regulatory reasons to track changes then try to understand the specific minimum requirements. I've worked in a government environment for example where all changes needed to be documented so that they could be audited. But the level of detail that was incorporated into each Change Control form became ridiculous - an auditor probably doesn't really need to see a change in an individual SQL script, a deployment checklist that includes changing ODBC connection strings, etc.!

4. Eliminate as many approvals as possible. We had a change control form that had 10 signatures on it - I was one of them! I used to get these forms across my desk documenting some change to an application that I had never even seen, had no idea how to measure the risk of the change and yet I was expected to "approve" it. Even worse, the signature had to be on paper so there was a constant stream of people running around with pieces of paper trying to find me to get my signature. Eliminate all this process and identify the minimum number of people who need to be involved in any change.

5. If you're going to have a Change Control Form/Process, keep in as light as possible. Your form should be no more than 2 pages and should be as automated as possible. We currently use JIRA to automate all our tickets. In previous environments, we've used Outlook forms. I've also seen this done use Word with Macros enabled to provide drop downs, automatic fill-in, etc. Keep your process light as well - if you need 2 hours of training to teach someone how to make a code change, then something is wrong!

6. Keep Operations teams involved from day one. One of the primary reasons why change control forms are deployed is because Operations teams get tired of having code dumped on them without documentation or involvement. The typical solution is to put in a gate keeping process to keep the developers from deploying something unsafe to production. This is a legitimate role, but change control processes typically provide artificial security - simply because a developer has filled in the proper form doesn't mean their code works as advertised. Instead, have an Operations Lead that is an integral part of the project from day one who will have a specific understanding of the project and create the right level of documentation, deployment guides, test cases, etc. and be testing these along the way. This is far more effective than a large form being written at the end of the cycle.

7. Keep stakeholders involved throughout the project. The reason why Change Control forms need to be so heavily documented is because the key stakeholders have not been involved all along the way. If stakeholders are seeing working software using Show and Tell techniques, then Change Control simply becomes regular involvement in the project.

8. Use multiple models of communication. Instead of having a single Change Control Form that forces people to write in a specific way, allow for multiple models of communication that could include meetings, power point presentations, white boards, Visio diagrams, etc.

Based on the above principles, here is my current favorite flavour of Change Control:

1. We build our requirements using use case documents that living documents. We currently use Word because its dumb simple and stakeholders can easily open it and change it. We use power point for wire frames and Visio for almost everything else.

2. Revisions of documents get stored in source code control for safe keeping and history. However, we're not dogmatic about it and in my experience the value of these minor revisions is usually not significant - most stakeholders want to see the current version. We keep them in our repository so that everything is stored together and document revisions are tied to code revisions.

3. We have iterations every 2 weeks that include review meetings with the entire team including stakeholders. We do a show and tell of all working code and we use the meeting to prioritize and change. We typically do this by opening up documents on the spot, but sometimes we use pen and paper and transcribe the changes right after the meeting.

4. We use JIRA for day to day tracking of tasks. We treat all changes, bugs, feature requests and tickets the same way. We have a very simple work flow that moves all tasks from open to resolved to closed. Our list of changes can be pulled directly from JIRA as a list of changes. The list of outstanding bugs can be also pulled at any time so we don't need a specific final bug review meeting - we will have been reviewing them on a daily basis.

5. When we're getting close to deployment, we use white board based checklists to capture the minute details (e.g. make sure the ODBC driver is configured properly) that need to be done to move to production. We check these off by simply crossing them off or wiping them from the list. We have 15-20 minute stand-up meetings that includes the Operations Lead so that we're communicating effectively with Operations and they know exactly where things are at as we move into production.

6. Just before doing a deployment to production, I have a meeting with executive stakeholders with a very high level presentation in power point. It presents the current status, any risks that they need to understand, confidence in going, and high level operations plan. Executives typically don't care about whether the SQL is right - they want to know that the team has confidence that it can deploy safely, has followed the appropriate testing processes and that the team is on standby with a contingency plan in case things go wrong.

There are lots of variations to this process and many different tool combinations. You can scale the process up or down depending on the size and formality of the project. In addition, if you're working in a specific regulatory context you may need to be producing more formal documents, approvals, audit trails, etc. My suggestion is always prioritize these below communication and if you need to do this for regulatory purposes then do so but keep the work as minimized as possible. Never substitute change control processes for good communication, team collaboration, stakeholder involvement, etc. In addition, remember that Change Control is a means and not an end - working software is the objective and should be focus for the team.