Documentating Software, my 2c

Documentation....Aaargh..why in heavens name would anyone waste time on it? The following few words are a window into my experiences and thoughts on documentation in IT organizations.

Sadly, most organizations cannot or will not afford, the luxury of an additional resource who is dedicated to just the task of documentation, i,e., a technical writer. So as developers and architects where does that leave us ? I have heard statements such as:

• "Your code should be clear enough such that documenting the same is redundant"
• "Documentation is not much value unless its kept up to date, bad or expired documentation is worse than no documentation"
• "It is more important that the code has enough test coverage. The tests if good, document the code use"
• "We do not have the time, it is lowest on our priority list. We got bigger fish to fry."
  

Don't get me wrong, I am not in total disagreement regarding the above. Neither am I a subject matter expert on documentation. I am someone who often finds myself in the middle of this.

What I find myself questioning is:

• If the code is so self documenting or clear, and if you find people keep asking the same question over an over, is it really so self documenting ?
  
• If one created documentation, clearly it was considered important. If important, then it would need to updated with the same love when created.
• And please, there is always time...:-)
  

I have often entered an enterprise only to find that there is no Enterprise level documentation, stale or current. On the other hand, I have walked into an Enterprise only to be handed a thick set of pages to wade over to acclimatize myself. Neither worked for me, what I was seeking as an entrant was to see the enterprise from the 2000 feet level and then drill down as appropriate.

I am a very visual person, many a time a figure to me means more than a 1000 words. If there is a diagram that describes the stack the company uses, the applications, the services, even if partially wrong, immediately gives me a description of the architecture and/or project. That is a big win as far as acclimatising me to the environment.

When different folk ask the same question to me many times over, to me, that is another clearly indication of a lack of documentation. If a topic is constantly questioned, it deserves a place IMHO for documentation such that the next time the question arises, I point the person posing the question to the documentation instead of the repeated sermon that only I hold the copyrights to. DRY (Don't repeat yourself) does not apply to code alone...

Documentation is often created with great detail and appears as a big win, however if it starts becoming stale, then it loses its value and significance and becomes more of a "White Elephant". A conversation I had with someone in the past:

Someone: "Can you help me with this?"
Me: "Sure, did you check the documentation on the same?"
Someone: "Yeah but that is so outdated, so I don't bother looking at it any more"

The above conversation totally supports the argument that bad or documentation that are stale are definite deterrents to readers.

The following represent a few directions regarding documentation that I will try to adhere to:

1. Enterprise or Project Documentation or "The BIG Picture documentation": From an Enterprise architect perspective, providing a high level description/diagram of the entire enterprise and how it all fits or works together can be valuable. The documentation does not have to drill into the microscopic details but instead provide a more a high level view that helps an entrant understand how all the parts of an enterprise fit together. From the perspective of a team lead/lead developer, it would be beneficial if documentation were provided regarding the boundaries and dependencies of a particular project. There is no need for details of a database schema, however there is need to indicate that the application talks to a particular schema on a particular database . These documents might even be able to help detect problems in the architecture, as now, you are looking at "The Big Picture" From previous experience, I also feel that documenting "Big" decisions that affect a project can have great value. With time, we tend to forget the reasons for choosing a direction. A place to consult back as to "Why?" can prove valuable.
   
2. Stack Documentation: A diagram and/or description indicating the various technology stack in play. For example, "JBoss - App Server, Spring Framework, HP UX - 10.2 deployment OS, ..". This might be encompassed within the scope of point no.1. Again, stacks are rarely changed, and if they are, they probabaly require immediate attention.
3. Repeated Query Documentation: If any question posed to a developer or architect is being asked more than once, regardless of its longevity deserves due diligence in the documentation space. In lawyer terms, it would classify as "Asked and answered" :-). If you enjoy the interaction and enjoy repeating the same answer, well then more power to you , please disregard the documentation angle.
4. Redundant Documentation : Code that contains redundant or unnecessary documentation (i.e., code is self explanatory) serves no purpose. I violate this sometimes and need to stop. For example, getters and setter of a POJO (Plain Ole Java object) rarely requires documenting if the method name is clear. Institute naming standards that are enforced. Don't bother with class or schema diagrams, any developer worth his salt will be able to easily find free tools to reverse engineer classes or database schema's and be able to get the most current versions of the same.
   
5. Documenting Complex Code: Code that is unavoidably complex, deserve either strong documentation or better still refactoring.
6. Job security as it applies to documentation: Job security is not improved by keeping the details in your head. People are smart and folks that tend to do that will not last in a smart organization. Organizations lacking strong leaders, well get strong and smart leaders :-)
   
7. When to document and how much ? : Things that are in constant flux are hard to document, wait for stabilization. However, do follow up after stabilization occurs. Make sure your code works first, then comes the documentation. If you have good documentation but code that is broken, thats not a win. In the same vein, I would go further to say, Unit Tests and Integration Tests are more valuable than documentation. Place yourself in the position of a person who will utilize the documentation, make the content detailed enough for your intended audience. For example, in an enterprise level document, do not bother listing individual Web Services or Database Schemas, it is enough to state that Web Services communicate with databases and or other Web Services. The detail in the documentation should also be only that much that you can afford to keep current moving forward. Finally piggy backing on this point, broken windows or no windows from the top can send a bad message. What I mean is, "If an architect or lead themselves do not document, then it becomes a hard sell to a developer that they need to document"
   
8. Detail and Artistry of Documentation: Reiterating, "Make it right before making it pretty". A straw diagram caught on a white board via a cell phone camera during the design, if posted on a WIKI is often as effective as a colorful work of art. High ceremony documentation is almost too much and often unnecessary. Concise and to the point documentation works in most cases. People are smart, they often like a start. Its like being provided a map into Yellowstone regarding the sights to see. One does not require information on the concentration of sulfur at each site, just where the sites are located, we'll figure out the sulfur content at each site :-)
   
9. Tools for documentation: Use a tool that works for collaborative authoring such as a WIKI. Almost any software development project IMO deserves a WIKI or equivalent presence. Media WIKI and such are free to use, so a smart person would avail such tools. Use technology where applicable.
10. Collaborative Documentation: Documentation on IT projects should not belong to a single owner but be considered a collaborative effort. In other words, every member of the team should feel that they can add or correct toward the documentation. If a person comes asking a question and you give an answer, if you ask the person to document the same as you feels its valuable and is missing, you might be surprised as to how gladly they are willing to contribute. On the same note when you find documentation that is outdated and more importantly wrong, deprecate the documentation at the very top if you do not have the time to make it current.
    
11. How to get started, documentation: As an entrant into a new IT environment, one often needs to get set up and be ready to get productive. A road map documentation that provides a user of "What, Why, Where, Who" can be quite useful.
12. Selling documentation to the business: Getting business to account for time slots for code testing itself can be a daunting task in some organizations, getting a time slot in the project budget for documentation can be harder sale. However, as a lead or person making an estimate of a project, it is important to bake in the same. Documentation is money, however you need to sell the same and its value to the business. Lack of critical documentation is something that can come back to haunt you. "Protect your skin and those of your kinsmen" :-)
    

I am sure I have only touch the tip of what needs documentation. I cannot claim the title of a "Documentation nazi" and/or authority, neither am I claiming a "One set of rules fits all". People have probably written books on the same.....Easy to preach, hard to do, but hey, trying is not so hard, is it, and that is motive, trying ;-)...