Push vs Pull in Software Development
lean software development push pull
I've been thinking a lot recently about Push vs Pull in software development; two terms that refer to how work is moved through the development life cycle, from planning in to production.
Push vs Pull is not an argument solely reserved for Software Development. It is actually a concept that comes from a manufacturing background. In fact, pull is a key component of Kanban, a system born of the Toyota Production System.
Push is often characterised by 2 statements:
- Tasks are moved to development based on an assumed or forecast need for them;
- Tasks are assigned to people;
Tasks are created, planned and implemented ahead of when they are strictly needed. In manufacturing terms this would be the generation of stock before it has been purchased as opposed to manufacturing equipment on demand.
Push is intended to have the benefit of stock being available as soon as the need for it arises. When you place an order on Amazon, for instance, it is almost always in stock and therefore deliverable immediately (literally the same day in some cases).
Along with this, push allows for managers to see how much work each member of the team has for the foreseeable future. Because each task is assigned to a developer when it is planned, you can theoretically tell who will be able to complete the task by it’s due date.
I say theoretically because, as we all know, software estimates are fickle beasts and never right. Therefore the issue with managing schedules in this way is allowing for the variance between estimated and actual time to complete. This results in team members often being over/under loaded with a reaction from PM required.
Push is (at least from my experience) the de-facto method of working. Most teams I’ve worked in adopt the stance of managers (be they line management or project management) assigning tasks directly to developers.
Pull is characterised in the opposite way:
- Tasks are created and prioritised based on a need for them to exist;
- Tasks are then pulled forward through the development cycle when there is capacity to work on them;
With pull, tasks are created, planned and implemented when they are needed. In comparison to push: this would be after an order has been placed in a manufacturing context.
Pull intends to reduce the amount of surplus stock by only ever creating that which is required, preventing a buildup of stock along the manufacturing process.
Within a pull system, you are only able to pick up work when you have capacity to do so. And you only have capacity when work streams further along the line pull your work forward away from yourself. This means that not in order to complete your work, the work across the whole stream must also be complete.
Because of this, pull is fantastic at ensuring work is completed as opposed to simply started.
A driving concept behind pull-based systems is the removal of bottlenecks. In a push system, work has a tendency to do 1 of two things:
- Pile up behind part of the work stream due to it operating slower than that of the processes before it;
- Run out at work stations due to them operating at a higher pace than that of process before it;
Either of these situations is extremely undesirable and need identifying as soon as possible, as waiting at any stage in the process is highly wasteful. Pull systems are designed to highlight these issues early, and once highlighted it is then up to the team to improve their processes to remove the bottleneck.
Pull is a big part of Kanban, where developers have a Work in Progress (WIP) limit and pick tasks up from the “To Do” queue when they are out of work. If there is no work to be picked up then they must help to remove any impediments that are preventing work from reaching them.
I once explained this to a manager who responded: “But what if I need to start other work?” Which is often the argument I hear against pull (and WIP limits in particular).
The counter argument I present back is a simple one:
What is more important: starting work or finishing it?
With pull, new work cannot be started until in-progress work is finished. A common way Kanban teams employ this is to have a team WIP limit less than the number of members in the team itself. This means that, should a team of 5 have 4 tasks in progress, then the “spare” team member should be helping to bring other tasks to a conclusion before any new work is picked up.
This ensures that the most important work is picked up and completed ahead of other work that is, by definition, not as important.
However, this is a fairly strict implementation of pull and isn’t necessary to get benefits from it.
Say you have a simple development process consisting of 4 stages:
- To Do
- In Development
A developer pulls forward an item from To Do and works on it. Once complete a test engineer pulls it forward to QA. This gives the developer new capacity to pull from the top of To Do and work on a new task.
The developer then finishes the new task but the test engineer hasn’t finished theirs yet. Therefore the test engineer can’t pull forward the 2nd task, which results in the developer being blocked from picking up new work. This may seem like an issue with pull, but really it’s an issue with your process. In push, the work would continue to build up in QA because developers would continue to push work over to them, happily working away at To Do. However, nothing would ever be completed and QA would become a severe bottleneck.
Eventually the work items in To Do would run out, you’d have nothing left for developers to pick up but be left wondering why the product hadn’t been delivered. The likelihood is that you would notice only too late that QA is causing work to hold up and move to address this.
With pull, however, the bottleneck is immediately apparent. 2 tasks in and you already have the developers complaining that they’re blocked. Why is this? Is QA taking longer than expected? Is the task hard to test or is it simply poorly defined and therefore untestable? All things you can address immediately with upcoming work.
It feels counter-intuitive that pull can actually ensure work gets done quicker, you’re actively encouraging work to be blocked so surely that will slow the process down? However, if you’re willing and able to change your process as soon as a bottleneck occurs, you will quickly see that it is a much more efficient, and therefore quicker, way to develop products.
It’s important to realise that, other than Kanban which is strictly pull, no one development model is entirely push or pull. Indeed pull isn’t a concept created from the Agile manifesto, instead it is from something called Lean Manufacturing. Agile and Lean are often confused as they share a lot of what they aim to achieve. However, the main focus of lean is the reduction of waste in any productive process.
For instance: Scrum is often described as a push system, due to the fact work items are “pushed” in to a sprint with a self-imposed due date (the end of the sprint). Tasks are then pushed further along the board with little concern for the capacity at the next stage of the process. It is also not unheard of for scrum teams to actively assign tasks to developers at the planning phase. So whilst it is true that elements of scrum are push-based, scrum can still utilise the benefits of pull.
Even Waterfall, for instance, can still implement a pull-based system to task assignment and flow. The most important tenant of pull systems is that developers pick up work only when the work is required and they have capacity.
We must also remember that software development is a multi-step process. Push continually produces work at the earliest phase and pushes the output in to the next step. In my opinion it is here that the biggest weakness of push lies.
Push forces work in to the next work streams, regardless of whether the those work streams have capacity for the work being pushed towards them. This then builds a false view of how much is being accomplished. It doesn’t matter how much development you get done if everything then stalls in QA or UAT.
Another issue I take with push is it has little to no regard for the highest priority work. If one developer (Developer A) is smashing through the stack of tasks assigned to them, yet another (Developer B) is meandering along slowly, then the tasks at the bottom of Developer A’s will get done ahead of the tasks at the top of Developer B’s. This then becomes highly difficult to manage the order in which tasks are completed and results in lower priority work going out head of other, more important, work.
Pull is also a much easier system to manage. Other than maintaining the to do queue, managers have little to do. They don’t have to search out which developer has capacity, who is a best fit or who should pick it up. As opposed to push which not only requires managers to still maintain some form of priority list, but also directly assigning the tasks to developers. At this point, any responsible manager will take in to account how much work each developer is assigned and if they have the time to get this done by the due date. Hello management overhead!
Don’t forget that we’re talking about software teams here. No matter how successful one developer is, if all developers don’t clear their queue then the entire team has failed. This lends to argue against push, which can easily become a system which praises the individual’s results over that of the team.
Added to that, push creates silos. Managers will push work on to the developer who is most “appropriate” (often the developer who has most knowledge of the system or task in question). This stifles knowledge sharing and prevents the team being able to operate at a high level together.
Pull, however, promotes teamwork amongst developers as it requires each and every person understand the tasks in the queue and be able to undertake the work at hand. This is achieved via joint planning and immediate communication of issues and blockers. And because each member of the team is held to account for the team’s output, not just their own, collaboration tends to increase and the product benefits as a whole.
Conversely, push based systems can easily lead to fostering an environment where developers focus on completing their own work ahead of that of the team.
Push does have benefits. Those very silos I mentioned previously can be a positive when an urgent bug comes in. In those instances “pushing” the task on to the developer who will be the quickest to fix it makes sense right? Right.
Except for the fact that developer is currently fully loaded with their own to do list! So what are you to do? If you put this task on them immediately then it will push back all the work they currently have in their to do list or require the PM to reassign it to another developer. Remember that management overhead we previously said hello to? Well say hello again!
However, in a pull system, the task goes to the top of to-do and is then picked up when the next developer has availability. The rest of the tasks still get tackled in priority order and there is minimal to no impact on the rest of the team.
But what if we’re adamant that this task needs to be done by one specific developer? Well that’s alright, break WIP. No “rules” are so strict that they can’t be bent, and if the bug is truly that important and this developer is truly that key to it’s completion, then allowing that developer to break WIP and move on to this task before moving back to finish their previous task is OK, indeed it’s encouraged. The key difference with pull here is that no other work is effected. Only the current task that developer is subsequently ignoring is delayed. The rest of the to do queue is untouched and will be picked up by the next available developer.
It’s easier to push. In the immediate future it gives you a sense of security that stuff is getting done and a feeling of control over what can otherwise be a relatively unpredictable endeavour: software development.
Pull is a harder slog to begin. You have to be committed to continually improving your work flow. Pull is designed to expose bottlenecks; in the first instance of working with pull you will likely observe a temporary reduction in output due to the bottlenecks being exposed. And this is where I see most attempts at pull systems fail.
The team either get scared because of the temporary reduction, or they simply aren’t willing to address the impediments that are preventing work from flowing optimally.
The thing is though: once you do commit to it and push forward with the appropriate improvements, you will see a marked improvement in team collaboration, investment in project success and, finally, output. Add to this the vast reduction in the amount of work required to manage your team’s individuals due to them becoming highly self-sufficient and self-organised, and you can see why this post isn’t quite as unbiased as I had previously intended.