There is a lot of discussion about the need for a foreman role in a software team.

Robert C. Martin wrote about it in Where is the Foreman?

I recently read a post by David Tanzer who disagrees with Uncle Bob’s point: We don’t need a foreman

The way I see it, a foreman role is important, but perhaps not as extreme as Uncle Bob describes.

Let’s start by quoting the foreman’s role as Uncle Bob describes (in construction and in software):

The foreman on a construction site is the guy who is responsible for making sure all the workers do things right. He’s the guy with the tape-measure that goes around making sure all the walls are placed properly. He’s the guy who examines all the struts, joists, and beams to make sure they are installed correctly, and don’t have any significant defects. He’s the guy who counts the screws in the flooring to make sure it won’t squeak when you walk on it. He’s the guy — the guy who takes responsibility — the guy who makes sure everything is done right.

What would the foreman do on software project? He’d do the same thing he does on a construction project. He’d make sure everything was done, done right, and done on time. He’d be the only one with commit rights. Everybody else would send him pull requests. He’d review each request in turn and reject those that didn’t have sufficient test coverage, or that had dirty code, or bad variable names, or functions that were too long. He’d reject those that, in his opinion, did not meet the level of quality he demands for the project.

I think that the commit rights is crucial point for many critics of this idea.

I would like to suggest a middle way.

A foreman role, but also team’s responsibility.

In real life the team is diverse. Some are seniors, some juniors. Some are expert in a specific field, others in another field. Some are expert in TDD, some in design, some in DB and SQL etc.

Here are the key points as I see it:

A diverse team.

A foreman who’s responsible for the quality and delivery.

The foreman will sometimes make the final call. Even if there is still a disagreement.

The foreman is also responsible that everyone works at the standards he introduced (with the help of the team).

Everyone can commit. Not just the foreman.

Everyone can suggest anything.

Here are some reasons why it might work.

Everyone can commit and everyone can see others’ commits. This means that there is trust between the team members. It also gives each member more responsibility. The foreman in this case will still look for all the things that Uncle Bob describes. But when he sees something wrong (missing test? A code that is not well designed?) then he will approach the person who committed the code and discuss what went wrong. The foreman will have an opportunity to mentor other team members and pass his knowledge. The foreman can be the peer, with more responsibilities. If Fred notices that people make mistakes, he will discuss it. The foreman has more responsibility. He needs to know to listen. He needs to explain and not blame. The foreman does not have to be the most experienced developer in everything. He can’t be. He may be most experienced in one or two or three fields. But not all. So if Alice is the most experienced DB developer, Fred the foreman should see that she helps other team members with SQL related stuff. He will still remind Alice about the procedures and code of the whole system. Sometimes the foreman will need to make decisions. Sometimes not everyone will agree. The foreman needs to know when to stop an argument and give the call. The foreman doesn’t need to have the sole responsibility for quality. But he’s the one that the management should approach. This is a tricky part. It’s hard to achieve. The team is responsible for the quality and delivery of the code. The foreman is responsible that the team achieve this. The foreman is responsible that everyone practices good coding (and everything that implies). The foreman is the one who needs to mentor team members who do not know how to bring quality code. The team is responsible for the architecture and design. As I mentioned before, the foreman will sometimes need to stop the discussion and make a decision. Each member of the team should have the opportunity to come forward with suggestions. Sometimes the foreman will bring the best ideas (after all, he’s supposed to be the most experienced), but more than once, other member will introduce the correct design. The foreman needs to listen. During the planning the team will estimate effort (E.g. will give points to user stories). Then, if the whole team is responsible for the design and architecture, the members will create the tasks with some time estimations. The foreman’s responsibility would be to see that everyone understands the priorities. He should be part of the team while designing and lead the design. If the team did not understand the priorities and didn’t bring quality code, it’s his responsibility. But also the team’s. The foreman should introduce new technologies to the team. The foreman should introduce the team coding practices. The foreman must pair with other members. Juniors and seniors. While pairing with juniors he actually mentors them. The foreman must see that the team does pair-programming with each other. The foreman is the one that establish code review habits in the team. As a foreman he can ask to review code even it was already done by another person. Sometimes it brings some antagonism, but as mentioned before, he has the responsibility and he’s the one that needs to answer the management.

Uncle Bob suggested a rather extreme approach.

Perhaps it suits in some extreme cases. He describes an open source project that actually work with several foremen: A Spectrum of Trust

On the other side, David Tanzer shows correctly why this approach may deteriorate the team spirit and trust.

I think that it’s possible to have a middle way.

I think that a team can have a foreman, a person who’s in charge. But still let everyone be involved. Have trust, spirit and motivation.



