April 15, 2024

Nearly all of builders work solo. Duties are generally assigned to
single people in a apply that known as “solo coding”. Builders
that apply solo coding are sometimes remoted in silos that forestall data
sharing throughout the group. These silos additionally make it troublesome for group members
to bond and create private relationships, particularly in a distant working
surroundings. Onboarding of recent group members is sophisticated and the
institution of high quality gates like code critiques end in a bottleneck for
supply effectivity. As well as, binding the work to particular person group
members additionally creates a danger for each time this individual leaves the group (eg.
holidays or sick depart). Lastly, people ultimately develop into house owners of
areas of the system and the individual to go to for feature-specific

Pair programming is a viable different to solo coding.
On Pair Programming explores its advantages and challenges.
When creating in pairs, individuals can work carefully along with the purpose to
always share data and data. This results in higher refinement
of tales as a result of everybody may have the required context to contribute.
Additionally, there isn’t a want for particular code overview processes since all code is
being reviewed ​​on the fly. Pairing creates extra alternatives for individuals to
know one another and develop private bonds thus rising group’s cohesion.
Pairing processes must be accompanied by a periodic pair rotation ceremony
in order that pair switching can occur. This permits individuals to expertise working
with everybody within the group. After this ceremony builders ought to share the
present duties’ context and progress with the brand new pair in order that the supply
circulate can proceed.

The frequency of pair rotations can differ between groups. Despite the fact that
frequent pair rotations are most popular in an effort to maximize the advantages of
pairing, some groups have reported that rotating pairs continuously creates
friction. There’s a notion that rotating pairs day-after-day, or each
different day, is extra pricey and harder than rotating as soon as per week. On
the opposite finish of the spectrum, there are additionally groups which rotate pairs as soon as
a month. This implies a person would take at the least 5 months to pair with
different 5 individuals within the group at the least as soon as, assuming no repeated pairs throughout
this era. One other routine is when pairs rotate solely once they end a
job, which makes the frequency indeterminate. Additionally it is not sensible to
rotate pairs on job completion since it’s unlikely that different pairs
end on the similar time.

We began noticing that groups with rare pair rotations are likely to
current related signs seen in groups that do solo coding. Lengthy-lived pairs
begin to develop into “companions in crime”. Context sharing will get more durable the longer it takes for
pair switching to occur: Builders must share all of the context from the
earlier month with a brand new pair within the context of month-to-month rotations. We had
proof that our pair switching apply wasn’t yielding the specified
outcomes, so we determined to run an experiment with the purpose to enhance group
efficiency via pairing greatest practices.

Our Experiment

We determined to problem groups that practiced rare pair rotations
to radically enhance this frequency as a part of an experiment. What if for
two weeks we rotated pairs day-after-day? What had been the difficulties discovered
throughout this time, and what can we do to deal with them? Did we reap the
advantages of pairing throughout this time? Going ahead, does the group wish to
hold rotating pairs day-after-day or return to the earlier frequency?

We developed an train designed to assist a group discover frequent pair
rotation and make essential evaluation of its influence. The train begins
with a one hour, facilitated whiteboarding session, throughout which the group
members write up and talk about their ideas on the next three

  • Why is pairing beneficial?
  • What makes pairing troublesome?
  • What makes pairing straightforward?

These questions are introduced so as. The group has three minutes to
submit solutions for every query on the board and 7 minutes to debate
what they’ve shared.

Determine 2:
Mural board displaying group’s suggestions throughout the pair rotation experiment

For the next days of the train the group continues engaged on
their backlog whereas rotating pairs day-after-day. For any job in progress one
member of the pair stays with the duty as “anchor” whereas the opposite
rotates onto one other job. “Anchors” of a job rotate each
different day, making certain that no group member will work on a single job for
greater than two days consecutively.

The group meets each morning for half-hour on a whiteboard session
with the next three questions:

  • What makes pairing troublesome?
  • What makes pairing straightforward?
  • What practices ought to we attempt at present, to make our pairing simpler and extra

These questions are introduced so as, every with three minutes to submit
concepts on the board and 5 minutes to debate. When that is completed, the
group identifies anchors for every job in progress and facilitates the
project of recent pairs.

We facilitated this each day retrospective utilizing the identical board day-after-day,
with a novel colour of sticky for every day. This allowed the group members
to see the factors raised in every space on every day, leading to a
visualization of the group’s studying and demanding considering all through the

On the final day of the train we facilitated the ultimate whiteboard
session, after which requested the group to resolve on a pair rotation frequency to
proceed. We then inspired the group to proceed to revisit their pair
rotation frequency in future group retrospectives.

Outcomes of our Experiment

Throughout 2022 – 2023 we engaged three separate groups to do this
experiment for one week every. Every of those groups had been totally distributed,
working collectively on-line however by no means in individual. Two of those
groups had been collocated between the US and Brazil.

Every group raised related considerations firstly of the experiment. In
the primary part under we share a few of these considerations and describe how
the groups’ place developed over the course of the experiment. The second
part presents some suggestions that shows the realized advantages of
pairing and frequent pair rotations.

All groups that participated in our experiment used methods like Jira or
Trello to doc and monitor work objects, and all used the time period “card” to
describe a file in that system. The next suggestions and outcomes use
the phrase “card” on this sense.

What makes pairing onerous and the way the perceptions modified

“Lack of empathy, alignment and communication makes pairing troublesome”

Frequent pair rotation is usually a highly effective device in constructing stronger
group dynamics. Initially, an absence of empathy and alignment could make
pairing difficult, particularly when group members are unfamiliar with
one another’s working patterns, tempo, and areas of experience. Nevertheless,
by switching pairs continuously, group members have the chance to
get to know each other higher, and shortly. This familiarity makes it
simpler to empathize and align with one another, finally fostering
stronger bonds throughout the group. Furthermore, the apply of frequent
pair rotation encourages a tradition of suggestions. We steered that group members
deliberately share suggestions throughout quick periods on the finish of their
pairing periods, contributing to steady enchancment and higher

“There are numerous interruptions to pairing time”

Groups reported challenges in pairing as a result of frequent interruptions
brought on by an absence of lengthy durations of uninterrupted working time. To
tackle this concern, the groups established core working hours within the
afternoon throughout which interruptions are minimized. In consequence,
conferences acquired shifted to the morning or the tip of the day.
Moreover, pairs throughout the group utilized the Pomodoro Method or
different specific timeboxing methodology to maximise their effectivity and
productiveness throughout their restricted working time.

“Switching pairs on a regular basis makes us slower”

There’s a notion that rising the frequency of rotations
leads to a decline in supply efficiency, as perceived by the
product group. They have a tendency to consider that extra rotation results in lowered
effectivity and slower output.

There additionally exists a developer notion that frequent rotations
introduce extra overhead, consequently slowing down the group.
That is attributed to the necessity to persistently share the evolving
context of ongoing work, which is perceived as a time-consuming
course of.

Nevertheless, proponents of extra frequent rotations argue that sharing
context turns into extra environment friendly because the frequency will increase. That is
attributed to the truth that there may be sometimes much less contextual
info to speak if pair switching is finished continuously.
Furthermore, the effectivity of sharing context is additional enhanced when
each group member possesses a extra complete understanding of
ongoing duties. As well as, frequent pair switches creates an
alternative for group members to determine processes to facilitate
context sharing.

The apply of frequent rotation turns into extra manageable and
streamlined over time. Because the group turns into accustomed to this
strategy, the preliminary challenges related to frequent rotation
diminish, making the method progressively simpler and extra

The skilled advantages of frequent pair rotation

“Context sharing is simple and fast once you do it extra typically”

One concern that we heard from all three groups was that swapping
pair members on work in progress would result in an issue of sharing
context with the brand new pair member. The truth is, for every group this appeared
to be the strongest motivation for long-lived pairs.

In every group’s board we discovered that this concern could be raised
within the first couple of days. Staff members would recommend widespread methods
to make context sharing simpler, and by the tip of the experiment it
was now not a priority. A apply that emerged in every group was to
have pairs finish their day by including a word to the cardboard itself,
briefly capturing the work and choices accomplished that day. They
may also add or take away objects from a to-do checklist additionally maintained in
the cardboard. These easy practices helped the cardboard itself to hold the
context of the work in progress, relatively than having that context
reside with particular group members.

We discovered that every group found new practices associated to the
playing cards. In our each day discussions the group members would ask for extra
context to be held within the card, smaller playing cards, and ongoing feedback
within the playing cards.

“Data is flowing via the group”

This is without doubt one of the extra thrilling and insightful feedback we
heard. Groups found that, in apply, it didn’t take very lengthy
for an anchor to share context with a brand new pair firstly of a
coding session. There was not numerous new context to share. Additionally,
groups discovered it was simpler to know any card after engaged on
many different playing cards of the group’s backlog. Frequent pair rotations
speed up this expertise acquire as group members are in a position to work on
a greater variety of duties each week.

“Information silos are unimaginable to take care of”

Every group included members of various expertise ranges and
areas of experience. The groups initially considered this range as
a problem for frequent pair rotations. Previous to the experiment,
every group was organizing pairs and the playing cards assigned to pairs with
consideration of who’s a junior or senior group member, who’s a
front-end, back-end or devops specialist, who has prior expertise
working in a selected space of the codebase, and so forth. Sustaining
this complicated matrix made it troublesome to modify pairs continuously,
and strengthened data silos within the group.

It was unimaginable to take care of these guidelines with the each day pair
rotations of the experiment. With pairs rotating day-after-day, group
members had been pressured to work in unfamiliar areas of the codebase. In
addition, there was far much less danger for any group member working in an
unfamiliar space since that member would solely keep on a card for a
day or two earlier than passing it to another person.

Our groups discovered that frequent pair rotations leveled the
expertise influence individuals have on playing cards. Longer-term group members
may take away blockers from newer members and share data that
assist speed up their progress and studying curve of the codebase and
growth instruments.

A number of months after the experiment, one group gave us some
attention-grabbing suggestions: They discovered that when an issue got here up in
manufacturing, they did not must rely on only one individual to look
into and repair it. The group may assign anybody to troubleshoot the
concern. As well as, one other suggestions talked about an incoming pair
rotation introduced new context that modified implementation route
and helped resolve an issue within the early levels of the function’s
growth, thus saving the group a number of time and rework. These
spotlight the advantages of getting data unfold among the many

“The work is transferring among the many group members”

Staff members discovered that everybody developed context associated to all
the playing cards in progress, even earlier than engaged on every card. This
elevated the effectiveness of the each day standup periods: Staff
members would share insights, establish dangers prematurely and assist
one another in eradicating blockers. That is solely attainable when all
builders have sufficient context and possession of all playing cards in play.
No single particular person owns any piece of labor, and everybody within the
group is answerable for the progress of the duties as a complete.


Despite the fact that the experiment concerned each day pair rotations, the three
taking part groups didn’t go for persevering with at this frequency within the
finish. One group settled on 3 day rotations whereas the opposite two groups settled
on 2 day rotations. We seen that frequent rotations revealed
bottlenecks and friction factors within the growth means of the groups.
Choosing rotating each 3 days as an alternative of on a regular basis pertains to working
round these blockers.

It is not uncommon that on any day the group members have only some hours,
typically fragmented all through the day, to pair. Staff members felt that they
wanted greater than sooner or later to attain a significant pairing expertise. In
flip, this could additionally point out excessive fragmentation of growth time
all through the times. This was one of many causes groups opted for much less
frequency than practiced within the experiment.

Lots of the perceived challenges throughout the experiment will not be
absolutes, however relatively lower when addressed head-on (and conversely
enhance if prevented). The experiment supplied a each day alternative for
members to replicate on pairing challenges and talk about alternate options to
clear up them as a group. The effort and time employed within the experiment
ceremonies had a excessive return of funding.

Generally, working the experiment dramatically improved the frequency
of pair rotations in these groups. One of many groups moved from rotating
as soon as a month to rotating each 3 days. This frequency enhance was a
results of the groups acknowledging the advantages of short-lived pairs such
as higher data sharing and group constructing. In the course of the experiments,
group members additionally reported taking part within the experiment made them be taught
extra about pairing greatest practices. As well as, working pairing
retrospectives and suggestions trade periods promoted the suggestions
tradition within the groups.