Category Archives: Development

Business, Development, SDLC, Software Development, Technology

Microsoft Power Automate SDK to Build Externalized Applications

Leave a comment

When I first started looking at Microsoft Flow, the previous name of Microsoft Power Automate, I recognized the high value and potential uses within my organization. Almost innumerable Connectors to 3rd party applications, “sensing” / triggers for many of the applications participating. Huge potential, and won’t “break the bank” with a 15 USD price per user/month which contains all of the “Premium Connectors.”

I started automating processes for both personal and business. I upped my social media game, for example, sending a mobile notification to myself when there was a potentially interesting tweet. Or, if there was an RSS feed containing keywords I was monitoring, I sent myself an email with the news article. My client had needs around Microsoft Azure DevOps (ADO) that it was not capable of doing “out of the box,” so I took on those automated workflows with ease.

Venture using New Business Model with msflowsdk

Then I thought it would be great to commercialize some of these workflows. However, there were several technical limitations I came to realize. First, to execute one of these workflows manually, you would have to execute it from within the MS Power Automate web or mobile application. The user must be logged in with your Power Automate credentials to execute “your” workflow manually. As a Power Automate user, you could “Share” Power Automate flows with other Power Automate users. Unfortunately, that would require your web app customers to have Power Automate accounts paying as much as 15 USD per month. We would have to think in terms of a generic “Production” application user, potentially shared with all external, commercial users.

Providing Custom Interface using HTML and JavaScript

Then I realized there was one way to present the Power Automate Flows without the Power Automate Web UI or the Power Automate iPhone app, and that would be to use the MS Flow SDK to build HTML and JavaScript Web applications. Unfortunately, you would still have to log in with your Power Automate user, that has access to the flow, but the User Interface was highly customizable by using MS Flow SDK.

Using “Generic” Test User for MS Power Automate

  • Limit the user’s access who does have access to your Microsoft Power Automate workflows. As micro as possible to granularize the permissions, such as execute XYZ Power Automate Flow without permission to read/see ALL the Power Automate Workflows, At the moment, that doesn’t seem possible (TBD). I need to recheck in Azure Portal and client app registration.
  • Does my approach to commercializing MS Power Automate apps even supported from a Microsoft business perspective? I don’t know yet. I read the article: Types of Power Automate licenses and need to reread this document.
  • Need the ability to grant “Execute” access to specific MS Power Automate workflow users without the ability to create or read any workflows of their own, limited Power Automate, User License?

Create an Azure AD User For Each Customer

  • Technical seamless implementation would be required to add Azure AD users who have paid a commercial fee for the Web app powered by Power Automate, or I embed advertisements into the Azure, Power Automate, Custom Web App.

The Experiment – SMS Delay

Wouldn’t it be fun to send a text message with a delay, enter a text message, and parameterize the delay in N minutes? How fast could I write the app across multiple platforms, desktop, and mobile? The backend and mid-tier would probably be the longest aspect of the development of this app. You probably need to put it in a responsive Web App to resize it to fit the platform. But the N tiers of the stack, how fast can I develop that? Less than an hour using Power Automate.

Power Automate Workflow

This Power Automate Workflow has three steps in the workflow: the “Manual Trigger,” the “Delay,” and leveraging the Twilio Action – Send Text Message (SMS), which happens not to be a “Premium” connector.

Power Automate: SMS-Delay
Power Automate: SMS-Delay

Front End Code to Integrate

With a combination of HTML, JavaScript, and the MS Flow SDK, I was able to put the SMS-Delay app together rather swiftly, including everything from Azure Authentication to my app to execution.

SMS Delay UI
SMS Delay UI

Give SMS-Delay a Try

Would you like to try out this Power Automate manual workflow? Please provide ANY login you would like to use for Azure AD authentication, and the user must have access to Microsoft Power Automate FREE license. Once you provide the user name to me, I will update Azure AD to include your permissions to the app and then send you a note to give the app a try: SMS Delay Application (rosemansolutions.com)

To Be Continued

For the next steps, I’d like to…

  • Publish the project HTML and JavaScript code I used to create this app
  • Solve the riddle of the Power Automate authentication
  • Create this and many other applications using the MS Flow SDK

Anonymous Authentication or Limited Authentication

Limiting the authentication, using very granular controls of Power Automate which may or may not yet be implemented. Have a limited Power Automate user with grant permissions ONLY to execute a specific workflow.

Is it possible to execute a Power Automate workflow with anonymous credentials and not necessarily have a Power Automate user account?

Agile, Development, SDLC, Software Development, Technology

Azure DevOps “Out of the Box” – Getting Started with Customizations

Leave a comment

New to Azure DevOps? Here are a few customization recommendations you can make with minimal experience and deliver maximum value. User Stories are an essential part of delivering using agile methodologies, and Azure DevOps provides a basic template for creating a User Story, such as title, description, and acceptance criteria. However, there are a few additional fields the author of user stories can capture to maximize their agile journey such as MoSCoW priority, Precedence, and Size Estimate to name a few.

In addition, there is a Marketplace (i.e. Library) of Azure DevOps Extensions that can enhance your user’s DevOps experience. The post will cover the recommended extensions to apply to “Out of the Box” implementations of Azure DevOps.

Azure DevOps “Process” Updates: New Fields

Adding Fields to a User Story is very simple, as long as you have access to do so. Upon opening your Azure DevOps (ADO) project, select “Project Settings”, and the “Project details” page should appear. Select the “Process” defined for that project, e.g. “Scrum”. Depending upon which Process type selected, “Scrum” or “Agile”, you will see “Product Backlog Item” or “User Story”. Both may be used interchangabily. Note that only “inherited” processes can be modified by “Project Collection Administrators” group.

Process Change: Work Item Types
Process Change: Work Item Types

A list of Work Item Types appear. Select “User Story” or “Product Backlog Item”. The Layout of the work item will be displayed. Now you are able to add fields, by selecting the “New Field” button.

User Story – MoSCoW for MVP

For a Minimum Viable Product (MVP), where is the line drawn to get the product “out the door”? Here is a methodology called MoSCoW, self-explanatory, in which the capitalization is important and stands for:

  • “Must Have” – we aren’t going to production without it
  • Should Have” – borderline must have but could fall off the MVP list if there is pressure to reduce scope to meet timelines, for example.
  • Could Have” – a story identified but not prioritized in the currently targeted MVP.
  • “Won’t Have” – identified and then forgotten. It will never reach prod.

User Story – Precedence (Prioritization)

Reminiscent of the original BASIC programming language, using 10, 20, 30, etc., line numbers for execution sequence. In addition, like in BASIC, implement precedence by 10s, so there is room later on to fit in additional work items.

Priority within the Sprint for a given team member

How should someone on the implementation team prioritize their work? Especially important if the team runs out of time for a sprint and only produces the highest business or technology value first.

Priority within a Sprint for all team members

Collectively, as input from the product owner or team tech lead, the most important work items to deliver within a sprint.

User Story: Size Estimate (paired with Story Points)

Relative, standard, effort estimations are essential that everyone on the implementation team is “on the same page.” to sizing the user stories. Although “Story Points” is “Out of the Box” for User Stories, a “Size Estimate” field is not. Relative effort estimations I’ve used before are Tee Shirt sizes (X-small, small, medium, large, X-large), and can be correlated to Story Points to attempt to quantify the effort in days.

User Story: Lead Developer

A custom “Lead Developer” field is valuable for quickly identifying who performed the work. The current “Assigned To” person may not be the developer who implemented the User Story. Most likely, it’s a QA tester or the Product Owner for Accepting Stories.

This could be helpful if you want to track each developer’s progress either by the SUM of Story Points or the COUNT of Stories.

Risks to Compliment Issues

If you’re tracking “Issues,” an “Out of the Box” Azure DevOps work item, then why not add a custom object in the “Process” section called “Risk” and any fields you would like to track with that custom RIsk object?

Azure DevOps Extensions

Analytics

Created by Microsoft, this extension may or may not already be rolled into the core Azure DevOps product. It’s ideal if you want to externalize in-depth reporting using Microsoft Power BI.

Open in Excel

Created by Microsoft DevLabs, this extension may or may not already be rolled into the core Azure DevOps product.

Azure DevOps Office® Integration 2019

The best tool for importing and exporting work items from Azure DevOps to and from MS Excel. It can be downloaded here.

Delivery Plans

Created by Microsoft, this extension may or may not already be rolled into the core Azure DevOps product. It’s the closest I’ve seen (for free) with a graphic depiction of delivery timeframes in a Gantt-like chart. You can’t print or export it, which is a massive inhibitor to sharing your timelines with stakeholders outside the ADO universe.

Estimate

Created by Microsoft DevLabs, this extension may or may not already be rolled into the core Azure DevOps product. It’s Planning Poker in Azure Boards. I enjoy Planning Poker, but this integration may be more convenient because it can save the Story Point values directly to the User Stories. Also, note some corporate environments BLOCK “Planning Poker” on the firewall due to the words in the URL.

Feature timeline and Epic Roadmap

This Azure DevOps extension by Microsoft DevLabs is a close 2nd to the “Delivery Plans” visualization of deliverables. Again, no export or print capabilities.

Retrospectives

This extension is a “Must Have” for all teams leveraging the Scrum Retrospectives session. This extension, built by Microsoft DevLabs, is highly configurable and is ideal for remote teams unable to perform this activity in person.

Development, SDLC, Work

Great Tips for DevOps Teams Running on Kanban

Leave a comment

Highlight WIP Bottlenecks

If the team is constantly dealing with production issues, the Kanban board should reflect both new functionality, User Stories and Production issues side by side. Add a “Production Priority” Swim Lane on top of your Kanban board. Visualizing high-priority production issues may have the team reconsider the priority of issues in contrast to new user stories.

Derive Effort Estimations for Input to WIP Prioritization

Team members should use effort estimations to help them prioritize their “Committed” work items. One of the work items, e.g. User Stories, may “cost” disproportionate to the value add, ROI. Focus team member efforts to provide maximum value proportionate to the time spent on work items.

Customizing States for Broad Granularity

New, In Progress, and Closed may not suffice to express work item states. “New” may represent the backlog of items, a queue not yet committed to by a member of the implementation team. Once a team member commits to implementing a user story, “In Progress” may be too wide a meaning, so adding the following states may keep the team in sync with their business process:

  • Committed – team member commits to implementing work item, E.g. User Story, or Task
  • Triage – deeper dive into the committed body of work to confirm crisp “Acceptance Criteria” and perform relative, effort estimations
  • Dev Complete – could indicate code complete, and dev testing conplete
  • Accepted – a “Closed” status indicating the Product Owner has verified the functionality is implemented in line with expectations, I.e. met Acceptance Criteria

Multicolored Cards Enable Teams to Classify at a Glance

Using different colors for Kanban Board cards allows the implementation team to prioritize work; e.g. Infra Task; E.g. User Interface or API stories. On many implementation teams, members might have areas of expertise such as UI or DB. Those members may hone in on items that are more relevant to them.

Tag, Your IT

Applying tags to Kanban board cards is another level of collectively classifying work items on the board, similar to the multicolored card approach but more diverse, not enough stark color contrast to classify.

Agile, Development, Project Management, SDLC, Software Development, Technology

Delineation of Work Items, Segregated by Tech Stack

Leave a comment

Building any multitiered solution is not just creating a User Interface to render the data, there is most likely a service tier that fetches data from a database, and serves that data up to the UI to then be rendered. How do you derive work items in your product backlog? One User Story, and multiple child tasks, one task per tech stack tier, UI, service tier, and database? Or three user stories, one per tech stack tier?

User Stories Defined, Per Tech Stack Tier

There are clear advantages of representing most work items with User Stories such as deriving story points, determining team average velocity, and a more accurate burndown chart depicting a downward trending scope and implementation of user stories.

Using child Tasks of user stories may obfuscate the total work required to implementation of the solution unless baked into the parent story points. Tasks are typically tracked in terms of hours, and separately user story points are calculated/derived from a collective, relative effort estimation, e.g. Fibonacci sequence; 1,3,5,8,13,20…, and many teams may overlay this scale to fit their sprint duration.

Feature and Story Planning – At a Glance

In order to organize each feature, and correlated user stories, teams may use a prefix in the title of the user stories, such as [UI] or [DB]. At a glance, a product owner, or the implementation team can see if all the required stories for a given feature have all the elements required to implement the feature. For example, if a new report needs to be created, multiple stories must contain [UI], [API], and [DB] stories.

Drawbacks – Accepting a User Story as Complete

If you segment your product backlog user stories based on tech stack, you may need to wait until all related stories, UI, API, and DB have been implemented. For example, If your API and DB stories are developed, and not the User Interface (UI), you’re QA/Testing may not start until the UI story has been deployed. Of course, your tester could test the API using testing tools like SoapUI.

Agile, Business, Development, Project Management, Software Development, Technology, Work

The Power of Collective Consensus for Story Point Effort Estimations

Leave a comment

Blind Concurrent Flip

The bartering of effort estimations between a team of 5 or more is really cool to witness and even further awesome to negotiate the consensus process. Not quite the process of the US Congress, but still attempting those on the periphery, extreme right or left of the bell curve of outliers to move toward the consensus. Discuss and draw near the point of consensus under which individuals discover their own need for resolution under grounds of somewhat tangible to their position of an item so complex gives one hope for a grander purpose.

A synonymous flip of the cards leading to the reveal moment is humbling when a team, after several rounds of dissonance, start into a pattern yielding the voting of a collective cohesion. Why do we start voting along a mutual agreement without the need for cohesion?

Can I Convince You to..

What if Chris Wallace facilitated a Planning Poker exercise between the two presidential candidates instead of a debate, driving consensus between the two presidential hopefuls?

Agile, Business, Development, Project Management, SDLC, Technology

Agile Manifesto – Personal Reflection

Leave a comment

Individuals and Interactions over Process and Tools

Stereotypical software developers are introverts, heads down, coding. Articulating where they are in the development lifecycle sometimes heavily relies upon tools for measuring progress such as JIRA, Product Backlog status of User Stories, e.g. “In Progress” with an Effort estimation of 3.

“Blocked” User Stories may require the implementation team to “break out of their shell” and work with their teammates to “unblock” Product Backlog items. It breaks people out of their comfort zone. We need to discuss options and opportunities for removing blockers. “All for One, and One for all”

Working Product over Comprehensive Documentation

Over a decade or so ago, the measure of my merit was the complete test coverage of requirements for software implementation. Back then I was a QA lead, and my focus was to make sure all use cases for the software under development had complete test coverage.

Requirements changes from our business through our business analysts must be vetted with the QA team so use cases/test cases must be updated to ensure coverage. Sometimes a dependency of one requirement had a ripple effect throughout the software, so lots of documentation updates were required. Milestone dates were in many cases fixed, so teams were squeezed to do more with less time.

Flash forward to today, and leveraging Agile principles, I breathe a slight sigh of relief. Iterating product delivery via sprints every 2 weeks is supremely better than attempting to traverse updates to Business Requirements Documents (BRD), and technical specs. User Stories in a Backlog are much more succinct, and in some cases, a bit more abstract leaving functionality open to some level of ambiguity and interpretation.

Sprint Close scrum ceremonies every two weeks with our Product Owner, the central mouthpiece for the definition of the software product helps define the path forward. Did we get it right? Where do we need to make changes? There is no substitute for an evolving product and accompanying dialog with our Product Owner.

Customer Collaboration over Contract Negotiation

Both sides of the aisle seem to agree, building a solution with iterative input from the customer enables the product vision to be realized far better than without frequent touchpoints.

Statements of Work (SoW) to engage 3rd party solutions integrators (SI) may be abstract in some way. Holding vendors accountable for loosely formed requirements is tenuous at best. Quibbling about he said, she said is a waste of time.

Fail fast, engage regularly and often with our [Business] Product Owner enables us to collaborate on a working solution. The focus is on the evolving product vision and not the paper trail.

Responding to Change over Following a Plan

A “last-minute” change request? It could push back our timelines and accompanying milestones. Dates can’t change, and teams need to absorb the changes, i.e. nights and weekends. Responding to incremental changes at a regular cadence is a sustainable life cycle.

Agile, Business, Development, Software Development, Technology, Work

Agile’s Watergate

2 Comments

A relic of the Waterfall model is the construct of a “gate” process. In order for a project to achieve a milestone, the project/solution would need to achieve certain criteria that would allow it to go to the next phase of the project. For example, going from solidifying requirements in a Business Requirements Doc (BRD) to the software implementation phase.

In Agile, we leverage the Product Owner (PO) and the Product Backlog to determine what gets done and when. A Product Backlog item (PBI) may cover the full lifecycle of a Feature, from requirements to implementation. The Product Owner dictates acceptance of the PBI based on the status/transparency of the Backlog, such as the criticality of the Bugs linked to the PBI. Product quality and implemented functionality are transparent to the PO, who will determine the next steps such as release the software, and/or go through another iteration/sprint. Iterations are a defined cadence agreed to by the implementation team and the Product owner, typically, 2-week sprints.

Agile, Hybrid Environments: Opportunities for Synergy

Epics, Features, Product Backlog Items, and Tasks are object types in a Backlog that enable the PO and the team to link objects and plan over multiple sprints. Epics or Themes of Sprints are “high level”, potentially strategic initiatives. Features roll up into Epics as a part of several sprints. Either Epics or Features may be high enough level to link to Psydo Project Milestones for a product roadmap of deliverables, and solicitation outside the team.

Aggregation of Product Backlog Items, Effort Estimations, roll up into Features, and then up into Epics, which roughly equate to milestone timelines.

The “Definition of Done” (DoD) for a Product Backlog Item may require 0 outstanding Bugs with the severity of “Critical” linked to this PBI. The DoD criteria could be analogous to a traditional Quality Assurance gate.

Tasks that are production rollout activities, without a project plan, should be planned for in future sprints, akin to estimating when items may be completed in the proper sequence. Some of the Tasks may be placed conservatively in “early” sprints and may require items to be “pushed forward” after each of the iterations.

Agile, Business, Development, Project Management, Technology, Work

When Stakeholders Collide

Leave a comment

Requirements Expedition

Maybe you’ll meet them during the Project Kickoff. Maybe you’ll first hear from them during a biweekly Steering Committee. Or maybe you will first hear from them three months into the project at a quarterly meeting with the CIO and the rest of his portfolio. Maybe you will never hear from them directly.

The politics of requirements gathering and prioritization is a daunting process. I’m not going to drudge up all the stories and categorize them here because it’s a painful process.

Why are some of your milestones in your project plan:

• the milestone exists within someone’s year end evaluation

• the requirements of a milestone are so bipolar, they are bound to fail. Need a project to bucket the requirements to say “we tried”, and we can pin it to a project.

• backing into established project timelines based on expectations set at the highest levels, e.g. regulatory compliance

Legal and Compliance Stakeholders

Global representation of legal and compliance requirements are a dichotomy of legal precedence between jurisdictions.

Agile Product Owner verse Waterfall Stakeholder Committee(s)

Many a project managed using waterfall kept me balancing the needs and wants of Stakeholders from all walks of life, some exuberantly voicing their opinions regardless of their position of power, or lack therein. The Agile Product Owner (PO) is a relief of burden, a single mouthpiece of the business, which dictates backlog priority.

Does Agile make the requirements gathering and prioritization pain go away? Possibly. There are various implementations of Agile, hybrid situations, and there are lots of tools out there to help manage the Product Backlog (requirements). Another exercise, developing User Journeys, working with your Personas / actors to derive their story, that is telling and lots of fun.