In 2005, I was on a team doing application development for a system that would be deployed to 600 locations. About half of those locations would not have network connections. We knew right away that deploying our application would be key, particularly since it is a "rich-client" application. (What we used to call a "fat client", before they became cool again.) Deployment had to be done by store associates, not IT. It had to be safe, so that a failed deployment could be rolled back before the store opened for business the next day. We spent nearly half of an iteration setting up the installation scripts and configuration. We set our continuous build server up to create the "setup.exe" files on every build. We did hundreds of test installations in our test environment.
Operations said that our software was "the easiest installation we've ever had." Still, that wasn't the end of it. After the first update went out, we asked operations what could be done to improve the upgrade process. Over the next three releases, we made numerous improvements to the installers:
- Make one "setup.exe" that can install either a server or a client, and have the installer itself figure out which one to do.
- Abort the install if the application is still running. This turned out to be particularly important on the server.
- Don't allow the user to launch the application twice. Very hard to implement in Java. We were fortunate to find an installer package that made this a check-box feature in the build configuration file!
- Don't show a blank Windows command prompt window. (An artifact of our original .cmd scripts that were launching the application.)
- Create separate installation discs for the two different store brands.
- When spawning a secondary application, force it's window to the front, avoiding the appearance of a hang if the user accidentally gives focus to the original window.
These changes reduced support call volume by nearly 50%.
My point is not to brag about what a great job we did. (Though we did a great job.) To keep improving our support for operations, we deliberately set aside a portion of our team capacity each iteration. Operations had an open invitation to our iteration planning meetings, where they could prioritize and select story cards the same as our other stakeholders. In this manner, we explicitly included Operations as a stakeholder in application construction. They consistently brought us ideas and requests that we, as developers, would not have come up with.
Furthermore, we forged a strong bond with Operations. When issues arose---as they always will---we avoided all of the usual finger-pointing. We reacted as one team, instead of two disparate teams trying to avoid responsibility for the problems. I attribute that partly to the high level of professionalism in both development and operations, and partly to the strong relationship we created through the entire development cycle.