Thinking about...A Trace in the Sand

by Ruth Malan

 

 

 

 

Architects Architecting Architecture  

February 2011

2/1/11 Bearings

This is a journal, which is to say it is a trace of some of my exploring and thinking. I make this spot available on the I-way in case it is useful or interesting to system and software architects, but I fully recognize that it won't suit the tastes of everyone, nor even many. If you are new to my journal and want to get a sense of what it is about, allow me to suggest you read The Useless post from last month.

I started this journal on February 3, 2006, so five years of entries have amassed. A right foolish endeavor!?

 
2/2/11 Retrospective

You know how important retrospectives are, right? We pause to take stock, surface lessons, and assess if we need to make course corrections.

I do think, though, that a sense of occasion, of ceremony, is important too. So, bear with me, but I think on the eve of the 5th "birthday" of this journal, we'll do a little celebrating.

Well, thanks for all the kind thoughts you thought. They made all the difference. I feel validated and energized. :-)

2/2/11 Playing Leap Frog

Ok. Let me tell you about some frogs. (No, not the chocolate kind.) Three frogs, aquamarine I believe, were sitting on a log. Not just any frogs mind you. No, these have names: Shadrack, Meshack, and Abednigo. And not just any log. A purple log. Now, Shadrack--the frog--decides to jump off. How many frogs are there on the log?

I was recounting Cory Booker's story (from his superb talk on leadership) to Dana last week, complete with all the distracting bits in Cory's telling, and I get to "how many frogs are on the log?" and my son was right on that with "three!" 

"Anybody know the answer? Yes sir.
Audience Member: Three.
Cory: Three! Yes! Why are there three frogs on the log?
Audience Member: He decided. He did not jump.
Cory: Thank you very much. Did you hear that? He decided to jump. He did not actually jump. Deciding to do something is a cognitive process. It is not a physical act. He made a decision in his mind."

Hmm, is this starting to feel like the chocolate kind? Like: Thinking kind things is not the same thing as saying them?

And yet... I just gave you a career-boosting little reusable nugget--no? Think how many situations this will be handy in! For instance: As architects we have to become just a little disenthralled with the notion that architecture is a set of intentional decisions ...unless we concern ourselves with closing the gap between decision and its enactment. Anyone who thinks that architecting is simply about making decisions is kinda missing the point. They could stack up a tower of decisions, fill all kinds of tools with 'em... but not a one means anything unless it moves from one mind into others and into actions that shape systems with design integrity and deliver value.

Sure, our nugget came in a surprise wrapping. But isn't that the delight of a journal? You head down a path thinking you know what you'll find, and you find something ...?better! Better, if only because it was a surprise. If there were no surprises to delight and amaze, why explore?

Cory continues:

"Have the vision. Have the ideals. Have the boldest sense of who you are, but unless it converts in a powerful way to action, then you are going to be lost." -- Cory Booker, Affiliate Summit 2008 East Keynote Address by Cory Booker by Shawn Collins on September 5, 2008

Leaders lead. We all know the saying: if no-one is following, you aren't leading. But to me, leaders lead leaders--importantly, leaders lead leaders. Yes, it is that fractal notion--if we want to do anything big, we need to lead leaders. That is how you magnify your impact, by giving others a way to make an impact. Which is to say, in good part, that as leaders we need to create leaders. And we need to lead up and across. In his splendid Art of Chaordic Leadership essay, Dee Hock makes the point that leaders:First person to lead -- myself!

first, lead themselves: "one's own integrity, character, ethics, knowledge, wisdom, temperament, words, and acts. It is a complex, unending, incredibly difficult, oft-shunned task. We spend little time and rarely excel at management of self precisely because it is so much more difficult than prescribing and controlling the behavior of others. However, without management of self no one is fit for authority no matter how much they acquire, for the more authority they acquire the more dangerous they become. It is the management of self that should occupy 50 percent of our time and the best of our ability."(50%)

second, lead superiors, "those who have authority over us: bosses, supervisors, directors, regulators, ad infinitum. Without their consent and support, how can we follow conviction, exercise judgment, use creative ability, achieve constructive results or create conditions by which others can do the same? Managing superiors is essential. Devoting 25 percent of our time and ability to that effort is not too much."  (25%)

third, lead peers: "those over whom we have no authority and who have no authority over us -- associates, competitors, suppliers, customers -- one's entire environment if you will. Without their respect and confidence little or nothing can be accomplished. Our environment and peers can make a small heaven or hell of our life. Is it not wise to devote at least 20 percent of our time, energy, and ingenuity to managing them?" (20%)

fourth: introduce "subordinates" to this concept of leadership (i.e., recursively apply the model)

-- Dee Hock, The Art of Chaordic Leadership, Leader to Leader, 2000

How do we lead those over whom we have no authority? We cannot manage them. "But can you understand them? Can you persuade them? Can you motivate them? Can you disturb them, influence them, forgive them? Can you set them an example?" (Hock, 2000)That fourth dimension has to do with setting context, so that in the next circles of influence, leaders can lead toward something that adds up, in a system of system sense, to outcomes we desire. Just enough context, that is, to empower within those next circles of influences, those fractal pools of leadership. Setting the context has multiple aspects. It means getting what we need to make it an enabling context. Resources. Tools. Space on the schedule to do good work--just enough, so that we focus; not so much that under pressure we ...provoke another manifesto. Yes, leading up. And it means getting the constructive support to create meaningful value, and collaboration on establishing what that value is.  Yes, leading across.

Right then, you want to lead and to foster leaders among those you influence? That is what my journal is about, isn't it? Finding frogs and using them to leap ahead, to the next lily pad of architectural enablement. Or... something like that. Mixed metaphors work much better for me! So, I have two sets of "frogs" I need to focus on in the short term. Leadership. And checklists. If there are resources in either of these categories that you like/find helpful, please do let me know.


This article makes the case for checklists (not for software architecture, but compelling all the same): The Checklist, Atul Gawande, December 10, 2007. Gawande has a book out called The Checklist Manifesto.  And a checklist for checklists!

That said, of course, checklists aren't a panacea. It is just as well to remember:

In another case, medical schools at Yale and Harvard have begun taking students into art museums to increase their observation skills, Pink said. The logic is that in today's world, a huge amount of medical information is already available online. But learning to observe a patient is something that can't be memorized from a checklist.

"Doctors have to be able to ask the right questions," said Pink. "That calls for extraordinary observation skills -- the observation skills of a painter, of a sculptor. So, medical schools are taking students to art museums to make them better diagnosticians. And, lo and behold, doctors who receive this type of diagnostic training are better diagnosticians than those who haven't."

-- "The Pink Prescription: Facing Tomorrow's Challenges Calls for Right-brain Thinking," June 10, 2009, Knowledge@Wharton

As valuable as checklists are, it is also just as well to remember Dana Bredemeyer's story about looking under the lamp for the key.

See also Risks and Consequences... and Checklists.

"Hot Spots are basically a heat map of common pain points or key engineering decisions." 

-- J D Meier, Product Success Frame for High Customer Impact, 2/6/11

8/12/11: Also: How Checklists Can Save Lives -- and Your Business, Barbara Findlay Schenck, August 12, 2011
 

 

2/3/11 Happy Birthday Trace!

a humble adventurer (by Sara B.)I woke (on this the 5th "birthday" of this journal) with the thought that what I am sharing here is my exploration. One might say it is a narration of the process, versus the product. It is tracing how I build my thinking, rather than presenting what I built. If you've followed for a while, you know I've wondered if I should share my "wild landscapes" or focus instead on formal "landscaped gardens" -- or more plainly, should I share my exploration or only the more organized, more formal pieces of my work? The idea being that the latter would serve you better for the organization and crystallization, and that, in turn, would serve my standing in this community better.

But this was the ah ha I awoke on -- because I'm sharing my exploration, there is a stunning difference between my work and many others' and I don't mean the fact that I write in a personal voice, though that difference is there too. No, the difference is that instead of presenting the end-product of my thinking, I present other people's thinking and how I encounter it. 

In contrast, because my focus is on exploration, I share the discoveries I make in other people's work, along with what I make of it, what I see in it that excites new insights for me, and what it stimulates me to think -- how it grows my understanding. Of course, as authors, our self-set mission is to serve our audience. But I hope to serve you by sharing my exploration, showing you what I encounter and how I see it sparkle.

I have thought that what I've created here these past fives years is distinctive, but I could never quite put my finger on what it is. Reading about Fawcett helped shifted my mental model, to see myself as a modern day explorer, and that set me up for this characterization. Thinking retrospectively on this, the 5th birthday of my journal, the rest of the pieces fell into place. Last year, in the same retrospective vein, I characterized what I do here as follows:

I serve as a seer of this system and software architecture field--one who sees and celebrates the great and exciting and delightful and funny and insightful and paradigm changing and helpful things other people do; who interprets them and points out their relevance and importance to architects. And I use this as a place to educate--to draw forth from within--myself. It is, after all, my Trace--a trace of discovery, without and within.

So essentially I did already know what this was about. But I hadn't thought of it in relative terms, so the difference between this and other forms, like essays (on blogs, for example), wasn't clear. For one thing, I'm not about building my reputation through this writing. If anything, this journal does me harm. It is bold to share one's path and the sometimes cartwheeling but more oft times stumbling into eurekas. And it is "generous" to so actively promote and share other people's work on one's "podium" for a voice in the community. But my self-set charter is explicitly to investigate thinkers of relevance, which transforms any notion of "competitor" into thinking partner and muse.

2/4/11: Dana stepped into the silent void with kind words of acknowledgment and inspiration, saying of my journal:

"fascinating, helpful, entertaining, intelligent and very courageous, and self effacing to a fault."

 I might reply:

"We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." -- Anaďs Nin

Oh, thank you for your concern, but the kindness of the words won't go to my head. If you have looked at my Journal Map, you'll have seen this: Don't worry, I am a merciless critic of my own work, so my ego is kept in healthy disrepair and that aspect needs no help from anyone else.

I, for example, am wondering if I engage too much in punditry. ...the giants I tilt at are but windmills, you might say; and it is true, there are useful windmills, and those that are not; but how does one tell, when one is so close to oneself?  ... it is hard to not go from exploration to interpretation to implication... which can seem like preachiness... especially since I have strongly held values... a point of view.

Still, I grapple with issues that tend to get neglected in our space where the social undoes the technical if we try to assume and rationalize it away.

4/4/11: I distinguish this from a diary, from the point of view that I apply a filter. You may suspect otherwise, but really there is a lot that I leave out, in terms of my exploration and reflections on life and living that don't relate to architecting.

 

2/4/11 Turn It Off!

If it works for airplanes, it should work for Facebook... Fortunately they rebooted the airplane while on the ground... 

that article is more about what went wrong, but the "turn it off and on again" thing is so pervasive. When it's mechanical, tap it. If that didn't work, repeat, but harder. That'll probably do it. If it's software...

We need to watch the health of our systems the way the management team watches the health of the business--to be just as on top of the numbers. This isn't just an ops issue. This is an architectural issue. Structural integrity is our "baby." It's... just a bit of a downer (literally) when system health checking and recovery overloads the system... Ok, so in the Facebook case it was configuration checking rather than performance dashboarding, but you get the point. System monitoring and recovery may seem like backend stuff, but if observation and intervention suck enough resources, that bleeds through to impact users. The lack thereof too. So we are thinking more in terms of monitoring and self-healing or adaptive systems. I also think a lot more could be done to catch glitches earlier by paying attention to patterns (in system behavior) in the domain content of our systems. For example, if revenue is trending in a surprising direction, does that raise an alert? No, this isn't just a business matter. There may well be a system glitch, like a shopping cart-promotion interaction that is misfiring.

So what patterns are you using for system/software health monitoring?

  • Alexander Lau, Rudolph E. Seviora, "Design Patterns for Software Health Monitoring," iceccs, pp.467-476, 10th IEEE International Conference on Engineering of Complex Computer Systems (ICECCS'05), 2005
  • Continual Status Reporting and 3-Category Logging, in Dyson, P., and Longshaw, A. Architecting Enterprise Solutions. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley, 2004.

Also:

2/4/11 On The Incredible Power of Leapfrogging

"Nor was Gutenberg, as is often assumed, a man driven by a passion for the written word and its widest possible circulation. He was a businessman, doing quite well out of making mirrors, who saw printing as a means of enriching himself even more (just as William Caxton would move from diplomacy and cloth-trading in Bruges to set up his Westminster press 30 years later). Some of the technology was already available before the German came on the scene. The printing press was a simple adaptation of the appliance the Romans had used for turning grapes into wine and olives into oil. The highly skilled craft of making the steel punches with which images could be cut for impression on coins also dated back to ancient times. Gutenberg's particular genius lay in seeing how these and other devices could be combined into an invention that would revolutionise the world."

--  The font of all wisdom, The Guardian,

 

Based on a recommendation tweeted by Tom Gilb, I watched John Seddon's talk titled Re-Thinking IT. It is wonderful: systems thinking, value-focus, and looking for the minimalist system to support value creation and drawing down "negative value" -- Seddon calls it negative demand -- or frustration and hassle and outright failure (the real business??).  Part of the message is to counter specialization and glib digitization of workflow designs that are based on targets and people viewed as "plug and play" resources. Altogether very interesting, and a wonderful call to returning to people/expertise-centered work to reduce costs because it costs less to have people who can just get on with doing it, rather than having people who are so hamstrung by "standard" budgets and controls that they have to bail and reschedule, increasing time lost to aborts and increasing the cost of (dealing with) frustrated customers.

I know that there are those who would use this talk, and the points it makes, to distance architects still further from system concept and requirements exploration. I go the other way. Ok, ok, bear with me, if you will. For one thing, it demonstrates very well that minimalism has to start with the overall system (the system that includes the people) design, taking value as the key primary orientation, and relaxing our preset assumptions about constraints. This is very much about reconceiving responsibilities, and being pliable about system boundaries. Seddon insists on taking IT out of the early (larger) system design process because he expects IT is going to be imperialistic and assert itself and (prematurely) insert technology into the design without being collaborative and investigative and open-minded about the creative, value-focused characterization of the (larger) system. I think that is belittling technologists, imposing a stereotyped view on us. Oh yeah, sure, some have earned it, but when I read this comment on Bob Martin's blog it just felt so emblematic of the boxes we get (often unfairly) shoved into:

"I just finished a conference call as an "engineer observer". The business analysts were meeting with the customer and we were invited not to speak a word. For any business larger than a Cub Scout Pack, the engineers speak technically to their customer, who is some intermediary simply because customers hate tech-speak sidebars.

I've accepted that as the way we do business, though I do believe I could tell the customer what time it is without telling them about the motion of the planets."

-- Joss, comment on 1/19/11

Articulate, witty, an affinity for analogy, and a keen sense of how businesses work, including seeing through the charade where the "voice of the customer" is at best interpreted and at worst faked by proxy -- frankly, we'd do well to insist Joss have at a direct connection with customers!  (I'm going out on a limb here and assuming Joss showers; I'm also assuming none with irony impairment read here).  Speaking of irony: Yes, there is a deep irony in Seddon's approach. On the one hand he professes to break down the harmful cast of specialization and compartmentalization, valuing more organic people-centered processes. Then he imposes compartmentalized, specialized views on IT! Instead of inviting IT out of the box, he shoves IT further down into one.

Apparently Seddon has become somewhat cynical about IT folk -- and managers who have defined the worlds we digitize and automate -- but... it only means we have an occasion to rise to, and the occasion is to see system design in broader terms. Now, we have to also recognize that Seddon has a point. And when less is more -- when less technology is more -- we can get in the way with our tech-zeal. 

So, this talk should be required viewing for enterprise architects, just to kind of shake up our world view. And I would encourage other architects to think what it means, without jumping to the conclusion that it means we get a nice confined packaged set of requirements we simply have to build. Instead of thinking of system design as converting the existing process to an automated one, we need to think of how best to enable the people system to work, how to enable and empower and enhance what they do. What we system designers need to bring, is the willingness and ability to investigate various approaches, often approaches that push responsibilities into the people system, but also approaches that extend the people system with tech capabilities. Tech extends our thinking power and tech connects us. We shouldn't ignore that in our system designs. But we shouldn't ignore how much we gain from simply reconnecting with what humans uniquely and vibrantly bring to work!

Seddon's talk also speaks volumes about software process and the trending toward more informal, less hierarchical, more network collaborative, process. Of course, I can just hear the Kanban folk going "he's not so smart, he's just doing Kanban for plumbers."...  ;-)

Seddon is a great speaker... He is right, about the part he is right about. ;-)  Sorry, I couldn't resist a spin on his: "Doing the wrong thing righter" (waterfall) and "Doing the wrong thing faster" (agile)... Grin.

He has a point. I'm only suggesting that he needs to apply his point to his point.

He makes interesting points about (the myth of) economies of scale in service businesses, pointing instead to the importance of flow. Not in the Csikszentmihalyi sense, though that applies too. As regards economies, I came across this and thought it interesting:

"The bigger you get as a free site the less money you make per visit and the more it costs to service a visit."

-- Markus, Monetization Free versus Paid, Plenty of Fish blog (quoted on CodingHorror)

 

That is the most exciting article I've read in a while (thanks to a Dan North tweet). Why? The use of a "mechanical" visualization to design and explain. It is awesome! Tingly exciting awesome! :-)

2/6/11 Architecture -- Accidental and Post Hoc or Intentional 

When we define architecture as design, and design as the creation of artifacts to achieve desired ends (Herbert Simon), we're saying that architecture is more about intention than accident. At least, architecture as an act is about bringing intentionality to the system form (structures directly, and influences on the structures, bringing coherence and integrity).

Most discussions of architecture allow that any system has an architecture, though perhaps it was not documented or resourced (i.e., not the focus of explicit, intentional work) and if so, then the architecture is accidental. It is the net effect of very grass roots, bottom up, and reactive rather than proactive decisions made in the course of construction. The effective "architecture" (the shape and form of the system, the key mechanisms which enable critical behaviors and properties) may be hard to find if it is messy and full of idiosyncrasies and inconsistencies, full of kludgy made-to-work-for-now globs of code. Then we can look for decisions like infrastructure/environmental choices, and the broad outline that packages give us, and designate that "the architecture." Because that -- that vestigial form -- is all we have to go on to reflect intentionality.

And so, whether documenting post hoc, or proactively (early and along the way), architecture is intimately associated with integrity which we get only if we bring design smarts to bear. Structural integrity, yes. But more broadly design integrity (design for use, fit-to-purpose and to context, etc.).

Now, we can design in tandem with construction, in the medium of code. The question, of course, is does this scale? Or alternatively put, how do we make this scale? That is what just enough architecture is about--providing just enough context and design to shape the system to ensure design integrity.      

2/13/11: That a system is working, demonstrates that we have solved problems and achieved ends we deemed critical. If design is about solving problems to achieve desired ends, a working system implies design. So, we can design in code. Done. Not quite. If we want to achieve more ambitious ends -- ends we know we don't get from an entirely emergent, agglomerated from individual actions, kind of system, like structural and design integrity, then we need to bring intentionality to the architecture or system form and function. And code is not the language of form. Yes, it renders form. But it is not the language that (best) conveys and allows us to manipulate/reason about form. At a minimum, it doesn't have constructs for some of the critical shapers of the system. A piece of code, for example, does not a pattern make. Once we have a pattern, we can illustrate it with code, but the pattern is an abstraction to be applied in different concrete forms with different pieces of code following the pattern. (Otherwise we just use cut and paste or inheritance or composition, not a pattern.)

Architectures are always some combination of accidental and intentional. It is just a matter of degree.

And time. For time has a way of undoing the best intentions. We have to contend with entropy (time brings change, and change in the context of complexity breeds complexity). And mounting technical debt (decisions to put off until another day the need to do a better design today, compounds the cost of neglect?).

Architecture spans. It deals with concerns and issues than span (significant parts of) the system. And in our view, architecture needs to happen across the system boundary, but then you're into the system-of-system context and partnering with the architect(s) of the larger system (if there is no designated architect, the business leadership may, de facto, be playing some of this role, or the ecosystem may in effect be driving the emergence and evolution of the system-of-system architecture). Anyway, there's spanning the system boundary. And spanning or bridging disciplines. All the disciplines that are involved in making the system successful -- in conception, design, construction, and in operation.

Because architecture spans, the architect is partnering (you might say leading "up and across", leading superiors and peers) at various points with those who have overlapping charters. With the result that I get push-back from different architects at different points in the conversation. Some will push back on the role of the architect in conception. Others will question the role of the architect during logical architecture. And so forth. I even get push-back on the role of the architect regarding risks. What form does it take? Concern that taking on responsibility for risk identification and management is stepping on project management's turf. Well, I sympathize. Turf tsars can cause all kinds of dysfunctional behavior. That said, it simplifies organizational life a lot to have clear responsibilities and areas of contribution. So even when aggressive tsaring isn't at work, we lean to a model of ownership. It is helpful though, to orient oneself more to partnering in these areas where responsibilities overlap. And clearly this is an area where responsibilities overlap! Very often identification of the risk, and the strategy to handle (transfer, ameliorate, remove, or respond to) risks, is squarely in the architect's bailiwick, but prioritization, resourcing and execution on the strategy quite often is gated outside the scope of the architect's charter.

If design integrity, or more narrowly structural integrity, is the distinguishing responsibility of the architect, risks that could undermine and undo the system are squarely in the responsibility set. But like everything else (from clarity on acceptance and delight parameters for system properties to implementation of the architecture), to be successful the architect is leading and partnering.   

With that in mind:

 

In Lean Architecture, Coplien and Bjørnvig state:

"architecture is more about form than structure"

As I understand it, form is about structure, just more of overall shape and style that influences system integrity kind of view of structure, as distinct from a view that is built at the level of the internal details of the system. Macro level structural elements and their relationships clearly give shape to a system, defining the outlines of the system, if you will. Architecture (at the discretion of the architect) may also include shaping influences on even micro level structures, bringing about (structural and conceptual) integrity and consistency. Also, I think it is reasonable to say structural integrity includes not only resilience (to failure, so availability, and to attack, so security, etc.)  but adaptability and evolvability, assuming that those are demands that the system is subject to. Then shaping influences take the form of, for example, principles or mechanism designs (full-fledged patterns, or informal mechanism design sketches) to achieve resilience. Moreover, these structures are designed to deliver system capabilities (desired functions with desired properties; features, if you will), and further:

"Form follows function - that has been misunderstood. Form and function should be one, joined in a spiritual union."  -- Frank Lloyd Wright

I referenced the Frank Lloyd Wright quote above in this post. That post also includes this paragraph:

The other day Dana Bredemeyer observed that for so many of us, information systems shape our everyday experience even more profoundly than the buildings we live in; think about it--right now you're letting my thoughts be piped directly into your head; that's some plumbing they've put in with those intertubes ;-). Anyway, it is just as well to remember the classic directive from Vitruvius to create architectures that satisfy: firmitas, utilitas, venustas:  "Firmness, Commodity and Delight" i.e. structurally sound, suitability of purpose, and aesthetic pleasure.'

I think the concept of form, or shape, is valuable. And perhaps the distinction that we are being nudged to grasp for is between structure more at the level of form (giving shape to the system) than structural details in the small (i.e., an internal details versus externally visible properties kind of distinction). I do wonder, though, if "more about form than structure" is pressing a point too far. It contrasts with the emphasis of other definitions (like the SEI team's) of software architecture that focus on structure(s) of the system (whereas one might point out that defining architecture only in terms of structure could mean that the role of dynamics or behavior is overlooked, or left to be dealt with in the process than drawn our in our characterization of architecture). Advancing our field's understanding of what architecture is and can be is a wonderful contribution, and one I strive for myself. It can afford lots of angles of address, including provocative statements (I try to provoke -- inivite -- thoughtful exploring myself). And I was provoked to think about it, so from that point of view it worked. [From my learning journey value frame, provocation out of thinking ruts is invaluable and a very good thing.] Given how many important insights Cope has brought to our field, I also expect that they are making an important distinction, so I've returned to this phrasing several times, figuring out how it connects with, informs and extends or alters the distinctions I make.Architecture: the set of decisions that shape the system

4/1/11: Early on, these decisions give rough shape to the system, but as we explore options and plant significant decisions so that we have something firm to move against, the shape takes more distinct form.

Returning to this discussion though, it occurs to me that something along the lines of the "architectural form versus structural form" distinction is useful in software too. That is, a distinction between form at the feature level (more focused on user experience or "the voice of the customer"), and form at the structural level (more focused on internal system elements and composition/interaction design and resilience and agility, or "the voice of the business") is worth making. The design of system capabilities is significant, and interacts with the structural design. A few of the organizations we've worked with have had "functional architects" focusing on capabilities and conceptual architecture, with hand-offs to "technical architects" for logical design and execution architecture, and I suppose this maps somewhat to the architect and structural engineer distinction in the building architecture space. All of these divides, though, reduce design across the boundaries, pushing what should be explicit tradeoffs into decisions biased by the waterfall sequence and job specialization (that is, development organization considerations, rather than system considerations).

Aside: by "voice" I don't literally mean what users and customers, on the one hand, and business stakeholders, on the other, say/tell us, or at least not that alone, but what we observe and empathetically grok and experimentally validate and so forth, as we discern the opportunity to create sustainable and differentiating value.

4/3/11: In bridge design, form would distinguish between beam, arch, truss, etc. That is, the shape at some macro level, that has strong implications for other design features. That is, relating to the architectural style of the bridge, that has to be applied and taylored to the design of the specific bridge in question, with it's unique structural demands and forces.

I think I've just concluded that attempting to put a finger on architecture by indicating that form is a central consideration just shifts the onus onto our understanding of form and that too is a squishy amoeba-like (shape changing) concept! Grin.

Well, as bridges go, in workshops I use the Millennium Footbridge as an example where dynamic forces from pedestrian motion had not been taken into account in the structural design, causing safety issues necessitating a bridge closure for almost 2 years for structural retrofit at a cost of some £5m. We have use cases and scale interacting with other forces to cause dynamic conditions that the structure needs to be resilient to. So when we are designing structure, we have to consider behavior and (emergent) system properties. Some of these emergent properties will be understood (like vibrations produced by wind, in the case of suspension bridges), while others may be only poorly understood and require building simulations or models (in the "scale model" or prototype sense, as well as the paper/analytical model sense) to test design approaches and understand design limits. This example translates to the software space, but we, like Lord Wobbly, tend not to think through the ways the system could go wrong and (early) simulate (based on models) and later test (under simulated loads) to validate our design approaches and/or understand critical break points where system behavior becomes unpredictable or the system fails. We need to get to the point where we have a better sense of our safety margins (or margin before failure occurs), but with some exceptions (mainly in the area of safety critical systems) margin is one of the more academic topics in software discourse... All of which is to say, our definitions of architecture should not omit or occlude the dynamic aspect. We need to understand and design what is analogous to the physiology of our systems, not just the (gross) anatomy.         

I have a love-hate thing with definitions. It's like system upgrades. I'm loathe to get into them 'cos I know the end of the tunnel is not where it seems to be when one first enters it. I half suspect it's one of those "wrestling with a pig in mud" things where you and the pig both get dirty but the pig likes it. In the case of system upgrades, Murphy is the pig. In the case of definitions, I'm both the pig and myself. Um. I think I'll go now. ;-)

5/20/11: It occurs to me that perhaps form is crafted (intentional, applying skill, etc.) shape.

8/9/11: Maturana and Varela make this distinction:

"Thus, organization determines the identity of a system, whereas structure determines how its parts are physically articulated. Organization identifies a system and corresponds to its general configuration. Structure shows the way parts interconnect. The moment in which a system loses its organization corresponds to the limit of its tolerance to structural changes."

In Visual Architecting, we distinguish between

  • Conceptual Architecture, which explores and identifies the organization of the system in terms of key abstractions and the relationships among them, and
  • Logical Architecture, focusing on design (and specification) of key mechanisms and interfaces, or "how its parts are physically articulated" (in software terms). 

3/29/14: In a recent follow-up discussion with Jim "Cope" Coplien, he noted that "function also has form." That is an insight that my wandering exploration above, prompted by being greatly intrigued by "more about form than structure," had bumped up against too. Not that I want to jump overly quickly into the hindsight and confirmation bias traps, but I do think that it is an important observation. Smiles. Oh, it is also one that lends support to and is supported by practices like DDD or capabilities design, etc.

I tend to orient towards learning as a journey (that, in my case at least, often routes back through territory I've visited before, to see what new understandings I've reached or am now better able to reach for). The conversations we weave through, via our respective blogs/journals, tweet streams and email conversations, and so forth, mean our learning journeys sometimes take the same path for a while, and diverge, and meet back up a while later. I love it; it's fun to not just learn from minds canned up in books, or in the heated press of on-the-job (which is differently fun).

 

2/7/11 Johnny Clegg

Oh, I just discovered Johnny Clegg is touring in France, and shortly to be touring in the US. Unfortunately his Chicago show is already sold out! Rats! Why don't people tell me these things?! But he'll be in Denver, CO in May.

He has a rather different sound now than the Juluka I came of age to. For a sense of that sound, try something from African Litany or ♫Scatterlings. I'm one of those scatterlings of Africa...  After Juluka came Savuka; for a sample of Johnny Clegg and Savuka you might like to try ♫Great heart and ♫Asimbonanga (with Nelson Mandela who said: "It is music and dancing that makes me at peace with the world. And at peace with myself.").

He is an electric performer and his lyrics have always been ♫important and ♫wonderful! It's a ♫cruel, crazy beautiful world indeed!

Of course that is more about life than architecture, but... did you watch the ♫Scatterlings video?  Architects work across boundaries, and Johnny Clegg was an exemplar of someone reaching across a boundary from "the wrong side" and bringing people together. He brought the music of Africa to white people in South Africa, which was pretty remarkable in a time of fear (oppression breeds on fear) and segregation.  

Besides, Johnny has lived his life as an artist with changing the world in mind. Why we don't do that in systems design? Yes, yes, the likes of Facebook and Google have changed the world. But why shouldn't we orient ourselves to doing that, even in that "one starfish at a time" sense? Why shouldn't our systems, and the way we create them, change the way the world is encountered and seen -- and less imposed upon? 

In this Trace, I bring together work and life because I believe that full exuberant living orients us to create more meaningful systems. We need this, don't we? We have created work worlds where the "philosophy" of work, in our case of architecture, is disdained. Worse, we think that learning how to make a living and how to live are contradictory missions! We have cleaved our persons, sending a dressed up office-ready persona to work. Compartmentalizing our lives simplifies. But our humanity bleeds through the walls and interfaces we impose on others and ourselves. So, why not just recognize this and apply it? Our greater life, our intellectual and physical life, develops in us empathy, perspective, analogies from which to draw inspiration and even design elements; it shapes and hones our values; from it we draw principles, stories, heroes and mentors, and more. Our systems are better for the ways in which we enrich our thinking. If nothing else, it helps to disattend* to

"the different branches of Arithmetic— Ambition, Distraction, Uglification, and Derision"

-- Lewis Carroll, Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, ch. 9

Dana got Nelson Mandela's Conversations with Myself to listen to on a recent flight. I'm eager to read it. This is from an early page:

Nelson Mandela's Conversations with Myself

The books includes, among other things, letters written by Mandela. Imagine!
 

* What, you think Martin Fowler should be the only one to engage in neologism? Actually, I find that although the dictionary doesn't recognize the word, "disattend" is in use... and related to disorders like bipolar and schizophrenia... which are related to high creativity and poetry... (and masters in software development???)

Journal Archives

Journal Map

2013

- January
- February
- March
- April
- May
- Current

2012

- January
- February
- March
- April
- May
- June
- July
- August
- September
- October
- November
- December

2011

- January

- February

- March

- April

- May

- June

- July

- August

- September

- October

- November

- December
 

2010

- January

- February

- March

- April

- May

- June

- July

- August

- September

- October

- November

- December

More Archives

Topics

- Bearings

- Retrospective

- Playing Leap Frog

- Checklists for Architects

- Happy Birthday Trace

- Turn It Off

- Incredible Power of Leapfrogging

- Re-Thinking IT

- Excellence in Visualization

- Accidental and Post Hoc or Intentional

- Risks -- And this Baby Belongs To?

- More About Form

- Johnny Clegg

- Unquestionably Useless

- 20,000 Leagues Under

- In Parallel

- A Wondering Wandering

- Innovation

- Nokia Follows Bell Labs?

- More Books

- On Books

- Google Celebrates Edison

- Chuckles

- (Im)maturity Models

- Headed into a such a Different World

- Dance Between Technical and Social

- Architecture Presentations

- Information Visualization

- Visualization

- Defy and so Lead Reason

- Make Decisions Stick

- Crying for Jigme Norbu

- Architecture Again

- Organizing Models

- Innovation Strategies

- How to Settle Technical Debt

- I'll Consider this a Nudge

- Leaders Tell Stories

- Scattered Thoughts on Visualization

- Elephants in the Agile Room

- Twitter Architect's Secret Sauce

- Good Following

- Connected Dots

- Status of Our Profession

- That's How

- Software Architecture Workshop

- IBM Got Smart

- Useful Tweets

- Kiva and Profounder

- Pursue Your Passion

- The Problem with Being a Woman

- Quality

- The Extended Human

- Point--Counterpoint

- Note to Self

- Design Beyond

- Left Brain, Right Brain

- Persuasion and Other Arts

- Refactoring cont.

- Where's the Design Thinking?

- To Engineer or not to Engineer

- Passing of Another Great

 

 

I also write at:

- Bredemeyer's Resources for Software Architects

- Trace In the Sand Blog

Blogroll

Chief Scientists

- Grady Booch

- Michael Feathers

- Martin Fowler

Enterprise Architects

- John Ayre

-Peter Bakker

- Stuart Boardman

- Todd Biske

- Adrian Campbell

- Louis Dietvorst

- Leo de Sousa

- Johan Den Haan

- Chris Eaton

- Roger Evernden

- Ondrej Galik

- John Gotze

- Tom Graves

- Melvin Greer

- Adrian Grigoriu

- Carl Haggerty

- Dion Hinchcliffe

- Paul Homan

- Brian Hopkins

- James Hooper

- Martin Howitt

- Kristian Hjort-Madsen

- Alan Inglis

- Janne J. Korhonen

- Nick Malik

- Alex Matthews

- Brenda Michelson

-

- Sethuraj Nair

- Doug Newdick

- Steve Nimmons

- Jim Parnitzke

- Chris Potts

- Randall Satchell

- Praba Siva

- Serge Thorn

- Bas van Gils

- Jaco Vermeulen

- Richard Veryard

- Mike Walker

- Tim Westbrock

Architects and Architecture

- Charlie Alfred

- "Doc" Andersen

- Tad Anderson

- Jason Baragry

- Simon Brown

- Peter Cripps

- Rob Daigneau

- Udi Dahan

- Tony DaSilva

- Matt Deacon

- Peter Eeles

- George Fairbanks

- Kevin Francis

- Sam Gentile

- Simon Guest

- Philip Hartman

- Todd Hoff (highly recommended)

- Gregor Hohpe

- Steve Jones

- Frank Kelly

- Kirk Knoernschild

- Philippe Kruchten

- Sjaak Laan

- Dave Linthicum

- Anna Liu

- Nick Malik

- Chirag Mehta

- JD Meier

- Kris Meukens

- Gabriel Morgan

- Robert Morschel

- Dan Pritchett

- Chris Potts

- Bob Rhubart

- Arnon Rotem-Gal-Oz

- Carlos Serrano-Morales

- Shaji Sethu

- Leo Shuster

- Collin Smith

- Brian Sondergaard

- Michael Stahl

- Daniel Stroe

- Gavin Terrill

- Jack van Hoof

- Steve Vinoski

- Mike Walker

- Rebecca Wirfs-Brock

- Rodney Willis

- Eion Woods

- Brian Zimmer

Architect Professional Organizations

- CAEAP

- IASA

- SATURN

Software Visualization

- Adrian Kuhn

- Jennifer Marsman

Domain-Driven Design

- Dan Hayward

Agile and Lean

- Scott Ambler

- Alistair Cockburn

- NOOP.nl

- hackerchickblog

- Johanna Rothman

 

Agile and Testing

- Elisabeth Hendrickson

- Elizabeth Keogh

Software Reuse

- Vijay Narayanan

Other Software Thought Leaders

- Jeff Atwood

- Scott Berkun

- CapGeminini's CTOblog

- John Daniels

- Brian Foote

- Joel Spolosky

CTOs and CIOs

- Rebecca Parsons

- Werner Vogels (Amazon)

CEOs (Tech)

- Jonathan Schwartz (Sun)

CEOs (Web 2.0)

- Don MacAskill (SmugMug)

Innovate/Tech Watch

- Barry Briggs

- Tim Brown (IDEO)

- BoingBoing

- Mary-Jo Foley's All About Microsoft

- Gizmodo

- Dion Hinchcliffe

- Oren Hurvitz

- Diego Rodriguez

- slashdot

- smoothspan

- The Tech Chronicles

- Wired's monkey_bites

 

Creativity

- Marci Segal

 

Visual Thinking

- Amanda Lyons

 

Social Networking/Web 2.0+ Watch

- bokardo.com

- Mashable

 

Visual Thinking

- Dave Gray

- Dan Roam

- David Sibbet (The Grove)

- Scott McLoud

 

Leadership Skills

- Presentation Zen

 

Strategy, BI and Competitive Intelligence

- Freakonomics blog

- Tom Hawes

- Malcom Ryder

 

Um... and these
- Nick Carr

- Tom Peters

 

Green Thinking

- Sylvia Earle, TED

- CNN Money Business of Green videos

- Matter Network
 

Comics

- xkcd

- Buttercup Festival

- Dinosaur comics

- geek&poke

- phd comics

- a softer world

- Dilbert

 

 

 

Journal Map

 

2/8/11 Interactive Visualization Drops to 20,000 Leagues Under!

Google's interactive search logo today provides a neat analogy for interactive visualization, don't you think??

It reminds me that in my slideset "towards a layout of the software visualization zoo" I am missing dynamic visualization. No, I don't mean visualization of system dynamics or behavior, I mean interactive visualization. For example, pan and zoom. The other thing that I haven't provided examples of, so it may seem to be missing, are tools that cover many facets of the "zoo" -- the CAE/round-trip engineering/MDE sorts of tools that have multiple views. I am missing, though, another dimension, also related to dynamic visualization -- that of navigating and tracing threads of reasoning that weave among and between views.    

This is an interesting research stream: bringing models closer to code, bringing together MDE and DSLs and more.

2/8/11 Enterprise Architecture Business Briefing: USA-Vietnam

"USTDA is sponsoring a 14-day Reverse Trade Mission for officials from the Ministry of Information and Communications (MIC) in Vietnam. ...

The Reverse Trade Mission will introduce EA models and best practices to support DIAP’s efforts to design a government wide policy standard based on specific industry technology solutions. In addition, the visit will facilitate progress in e-government adoption by addressing technical and interoperability issues, as well as encourage unified planning and procurement approaches. The delegation’s priorities will present opportunities for U.S. suppliers interested in Vietnam’s ICT sector." 

-- Business Council for International Understanding, Event Notice
 

2/9/11 In Parallel

Last night I watched Ralph Johnson on InfoQ, which reminded me to look in on Jose Fernandez/PPOOA.

Speed matters. Well, we've been living in a world where "best effort engineering" is generally good enough, and when its not we focus then on tuning up that dimension (or throwing more hardware at the problem). At the same time, though, our expectations just keeping getting higher, increasing the demands on performance and increasing complexity (making performance a harder game). So, we just have to get better at designing to meet key system properties, which means getting a better handle on what those are. You are no doubt familiar with the work the SEI has here, but Tom Gilb's (of Evo/iterative development fame) book on Competitive Engineering is important too.

Anyway, performance... taking advantage of multi-core... I need to put together a list like this one for coupling and cohesion and related concerns and this one for system failure and this one for visualization tools (with an emphasis on software visualization, but with broader scope so we don't neglect precedent being developed in other fields, or the importance of learning by analogy) for performance and especially parallel programming concerns. (And then, because I was foolish enough to create the lists, I need to update them... For example, I need to add Grady Booch's IEEE Software article on system failure (and his reading of it) to the system failure list!)

Don Wilson makes a point in this slideset (from 2005, but the point pertains) that we need to close the gap between industry and academic research. Which is not to say that academic research should be less frontier pushing, but only that industry needs to be more curious and investigative and researchers need to build bridges to application.  

This is interesting:

"The central objective for the ArtistDesign European Network of Excellence on Embedded Systems Design is to build on existing structures and links forged in the FP6 Artist2 NoE, to become a virtual Center of Excellence in Embedded Systems Design. This is mainly achieved through tight integration between the central players of the European research community. These teams have already established a long-term vision for embedded systems in Europe, which advances the emergence of Embedded Systems as a mature discipline." -- ARTIST Network of Excellence on Embedded Systems Design

The ToC and random readable pages of the ARTIST Roadmap for Embedded System Design Research provides a little window. This virtual Center of Excellence notion is exciting/compelling.
 

2/9/11 A Wandering Wondering

This address by Jim March is quite splendid! He ends with this quote:

"Humans are perishable. That may be; but let us perish resisting, and, if nothingness is what awaits us, let us not act in such a way that it would be a just fate." -- Étienne Pivert de Sénancour, Obermann, 1804, letter 90

Yes, splendid! Though I have... my nuanced views. I, for example, think that we harness complexity not by ignoring it, nor by dismissing it, but by entertaining it, embracing it, and finding within the "contradictions, paradoxes, ambiguities, and ambivalences" the structures and patterns that may be inspired or simply just good enough to get going, knowing we'll improve and do better. So our rhetoric of "simplicity, clarity, consistency, and certainty" can be authentic and enabling, though it is built on the premise that it is not static and unyielding to the lessons of time. Of course, it often is static, and becomes more so. But that's just because we struggle to accommodate our humanity.         

I was sorry that Jim ended by applying his insights to education rather than leadership in organizations more generally. Of course, he was speaking to leaders in education transformation, but the introduction and body of his talk addresses leaders in business... And I think that generally, not just in education but in business, a revolution is overdue. I believe that it is important to see how the ways we follow our Bliss on and off the job informs and improves what we do at work. I think that was the genius (or genie) in Steve Jobs' commencement address. The notion that his encounter with art and beauty (in calligraphy) at Reed transformed our world -- and has Nokia looking at jumping into the figurative chill sea -- is huge! Everyone has their different proclivities and places their Bliss leads them, and enriches their perspective, their aesthetic sensibilities and what they bring to design (of organizations, of systems, and even, if we are confined there, of the soft guts of machines).

A "Renaissance man" like Leonardo da Vinci was amazingly inventive because he brought much together within himself. Ok, so da Vinci is known for intellectual frontiers he forged, and for masterpieces he completed -- and for starting a lot more than he finished. Well, if we began as many and finished as small a proportion that were as great as the works of da Vinci, we'd stand the test of history just as well! 

Jim March, too, has been termed a Renaissance man. I have no doubt of the fitness of the appellation. Still, for me, for now, I'll just call him a muse -- a great one. Which is to say he challenges me to wrestle where he rouses discomfort in me, for it is there that the boundaries of my thinking are stretched (where I agree with him, he's putting words to, adding to and confirming what I sense or see -- more elegantly than I and very useful to me but still within my zone of comfort; where he disquiets me there is new ground to hoe). Ok, so let me back up just a moment -- I mentioned Miyazaki's Howl's Moving Castle in a post I eliminated, so I'll refresh at least that observation:

One of the key insights that Howl's Moving Castle magically conveys, is that people are complex bundles of good and evil, strength and weakness. Good people are such bundles, just with more good than bad, and in their internal battles between good and evil, the good generally wins out. The contrary for evil people. And good and evil in the world is the externalization of these internal battles. And the reaching out of good in one person magnifies and assists the forces for good in another, and changes the balance of their internal battle. When looked at that way, there's so much more scope for compassion and empathy! And so much more reason to reach out!

At first I wondered at the protagonist as cleaning woman... and then realized Miyazaki has a lovely way of seeing women, and this serving role is emblematic of what women are to others -- not servile, but serving, and though humble it can be a major force for greatness in self and others. Here is another view, from my reaction to Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind:

Isn't it just incredible that 11 year old American girls have as their hero a 70 year old Japanese man? But not just any. One who made girls his protagonists (earning him the "feminist" appellation) and who makes pacifism and environmentalism key themes. One who has a penchant for flying machines, but puts girls on them, letting them soar! One who blends literature and visualization in an exquisite art form that lets the imagination defy and so lead reason.

In Jim March's Leadership movie, Don Quixote's "I picture her in my imagination as I would have her be" (minute 24:15) is applauded.  Well, to me, the most moving declaration of love is one that comes from knowing intimately the bundle of a person's complexity and compromise, and seeing her (or him) with a joyfully inclined spirit that hallows all that is beautiful in her. "As I would have her be" asserts one's self onto another person. Which is to say, I think it more amazing still to be known -- seen -- to be utterly remarkable (in the ways that one is), than to be imagined to be so (in the ways another desires). Known to be more than the lover can even imagine, based on what the lover sees with an open-hearted (susceptible to her) mind! [I do love my husband who taught me that to be so seen is an expansive gift, affirming my striving to be more myself.]  I think that too is a message in Howl's Moving Castle, in which the protagonist comes to be loved not in spite of her appearance but for the best in her, which includes what she is capable of being and becoming. Her appearance is irrelevant to those who come to love her, and she becomes as beautiful as they know her to be. She manifests herself. 

Life is limited (time limited, resource limited, opportunity limited, etc.), which forces compromise. And yet there are ways in which we do and are the remarkable. We have to be able to embrace this duality within ourselves and others, in our products and in our organizations.

"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function." -- F. Scott Fitzgerald

So, a leader doesn't act as if the situation isn't messy and ambiguous and full of contradictions; the leader acts on the ways in which it is not. The leader acts on the simplicity, clarity, consistency, and certainty that she or he has seen, embracing the knowledge that there is difficulty and ambiguity and uncertainty in much, but this thing that must be done is seen as such. Compelling, even if it much remains to be clarified. That is what the leader puts words and images to, inviting others to lend their minds and voices to building clarity in the vision and the components we hack and hew and craft to build it out. 

2/9/11 Innovation

From time to time, Bill Gates reviews a book he's read. This from Bill's review of A Rational Optimist:

"Like many other authors who write about innovation, Mr. Ridley suggests that all innovation comes from new companies, with no contribution from established companies. As you might expect, I disagree with this view. He also seems to think that innovation involves simply coming up with a new idea, when in fact the execution of the idea is critical. He quotes the early venture capitalist Georges Doriot as saying that as soon as a company succeeds, it stops innovating. A great counterexample is Intel, which developed over 99% of its breakthroughs after its first success."

-- Bill Gates, Africa Needs Aid, Not Flawed Theories, 11/30/10

It is true that many innovations, incremental and revolutionary, come from industry incumbents. Of course, given how much resources they pour into R&D and product development, one would hope so!  Further, while small companies and start-ups are an important engine of innovation, their mortality rate is high. That said, it astonishes me that innovation so often happens right under the noses of big companies, hidden in plain sight because big companies tend not to be very curious about those who aren't on their radar. The key, of course, is not always to be first, but to be early to the party. So when we see companies having to buy their way in to innovations, we're seeing companies that aren't cluing in to innovations as they are forming a new space in the market. Focus is selective vision. But so is arrogance. And it can be hard to tell these apart.

 

2/10/11 Nokia Follows AT&T/Bell Labs?

You've no doubt read the Nokia "burning platform' story and the CEO's letter.

In Idealized Design, Russell Ackoff recounts a story from his formative experience as a systems thinker and designer, in which the VP of Bell Labs came in to an all-hands meeting and said the entire telephone system had been wiped out and had to be redesigned from scratch.

 From  Idealized Design, Russell Ackoff

Ok, so this is from what that VP then said in the 1950's:

From Idealized Design by  Russell Ackoff et al

Think that (the quotes are from Idealized Designby Russell Ackoff, Jason Magidson and Herbert Addison) is what Nokia CEO Elop will say next? We never focused on (redefining) the (eco)system as a whole?  

Well, it's one thing when you're on top, instigating landscape shifting innovation. It's quite another when you look around and see "the platform burning." But when the options are to bed down with Google or Microsoft, the times are ...interesting... The burning question though, is whether jumping platforms is enough. Nokia has been a leader in emerging markets, but what has Nokia done to lead the development of (eco)systems in those markets? I don't know, so that is an honest and innocent question. But it is an interesting area; what is its relationship with, for example, microfinance? (Gates' take on mobile phones and banking in Africa bears reading.) Etc. Addressing sustainability in the greater ecosystem sense lends sustainability to the systems that are key relationship brokers within those ecosystems. Will Nokia plug in to another's relationship platform, and if so does this conscribe Nokia simply to commodity provision? Is there a way to make a distinguishing relationship base on top of, for example, the Android platform? If not, is there a way for Nokia to create distinctive "objects of desire" clearly separated from others in a mobile device space where a device creates/designates/conveys social status (not just among one-upping geeks, but in Africa, for example, where a mobile -- and which one -- is a prized symbol of status).

Ok, so I'm running with a bit of tongue-in-cheek myself, suggesting that there is a parallel between Elop's letter and Ackoff's story. Naturally I'm tuned in to the double entendre in platform and it's a gutsy piece of "leadership as performance art" in this age when nothing that interesting stays confidential, so was surely anticipated to hit the world stage stimulating exactly this interest in advance of tomorrow's announcement! Elop is using a dramatic ploy to get the company (and shareholders) to accept rethinking its direction and identity, and the bigger point behind my allusion is that I wonder if Nokia will really do what needs to be done in terms of larger (eco)system design so that it shapes a landscape it leads in.  When Daniel shot me a heads-up on the Elop story, I facetiously replied "they must be about to call on us, huh?" But just think what an opportunity they miss not doing so! ;-)

Anyway, these pointers (via Daniel Stroe) are interesting;

By the time we see that we are standing on a burning platform the options are all very dangerous. We have to bring design-to-delight and design-for-sustainability into what we do now!  And I do mean sustainability in all its senses--including environmental. When we look around and see this earth is a burning platform, there will be no ocean to jump into and perhaps be rescued from!

Never despair of being able to make a contribution for the lack of management mandate or charter. There are just so many that need to be made! And most of them need to be made from where we each stand. A scant few people lead in ways that are glory making, but we just don't, as a society, have the attentional capacity nor the largeness/generosity of spirit for according all that many people glory! Indeed, many will try to tear them down as fast as they build the right to claim attention.

But we can touch gentle ripples of change into the world by knowing what we stand for, what our principles are, and what we value. And making a difference through our intentional interventions, seeming small but all lined up with what we just know must be brought about in this world.

That said, I know it is frustrating when, for example, management retrenches in severe cost-cutting mode in the face of a harrowing recession. If you're in a market where some are spending aggressively on innovation (especially when resource-rich companies in neighboring markets are spending aggressively to make a new landscape of the market you're in), it is wrenching to see blinkered cost-cutting strategies that snap off  innovation projects like branches in an ice-storm! Wrenching because the writing is on the wall! If anyone in the market is heavily and creatively investing in reshaping innovation when others are not so bold, chances are they're going to create a new balance of power. At any rate, they're investing in making a different future happen, while the cautious are simply trying to make it through to see another day. The bold have excitement and energy on their side, and in tech markets that right there goes a considerable distance! There are no sure winners, but shift happens. To those who pay for it with ideas and energy. If you're big, you have to pay more, because ideas are heavier and take more energy to carry to the finish line. Or something like that. ;-)

Hey, won't it be great if Nokia has its own new platform they're going to unveil tomorrow??? Or some other redirection and all this hullaballoo was just a head-fake to increase the surprise and drama?  :-)

2/11/11 Surprise! Not!  The Intel/Microsoft comparison is interesting... but it applies to Motorola/Google too. And therein lies the rub. Apple is leading mindshare and breaking into market share no-one would have anticipated. Microsoft doesn't dominate in this space the way it dominated in the PC space, and while both Microsoft and Nokia are innovative and have their outstanding and highly complementary technical strengths, it is Apple that is consistently shaping landscape.

"It is hard to differentiate around the form of the product. You have to differentiate on the experience." 

-- Tom Hulme, IDEO

2/21/11:

"In 2004, researchers at Nokia, the world’s leading mobile phone company, presented a prototype of a new kind of mobile phone to the senior management. The phone, which connected to the Internet, had a large bright screen and was operated by fingers on a touch-screen. The researchers believed that the device would be a winner in the fast-growing Smartphone market. Senior management evaluated the proposal and decided that the risks of failure did not warrant the costs: Nokia did not pursue development of the phone."

-- Steve Denning, From Trash Cans to Nokia: Is Creativity Innovation?,  2/17/11

Well, what isn't clear from that snippet, is whether Nokia researchers also were thinking in terms of an App store and iTunes rival. Apple's genius was looking beyond the device and seeing an opportunity to broker relationships within an ecosystem (iTunes and then the App Store) not only for profit but to add to the loyalty and sizzle factor. The iPhone isn't just a touch-screen phone with internet access... [2/24/11: Ah, they were -- Ovi was created in 2003!!]

2/23/11: What went wrong?

"So Nokia had a Plan B, and it had a compelling developer story. But it was too late. What killed Nokia's ambitions then was not stupidity, but its bureaucracy." --  What sealed Nokia's fate? It's the bureaucracy, stupid, Andrew Orlowski, 16th February 2011

I feel better and sick at the same time! I hate it when good engineering is killed by bureaucracy!

"It's what political writers call the most morally corrupting effect of bureaucracies: nobody takes responsibility. With the three divisions covering their own backsides, nobody wanted to make the long-term strategic investments necessary to keep platform software up-to-date. This resulted in the Symbian user interface being neglected. Nokia had developed a touch screen UI called Hildon, which became Series 90, starting in 2001 - and that should have been the basis for Nokia's iPhone competitors today. But it was canned in 2005."

--  When Dilbert came to Nokia: Fascinating report shows how bureaucratic fear sealed company's fate in 2003, Andrew Orlowski, 14th October 2010

Also related: Knock, Knock, Nokia's Heavy Fall...  Knock, Knock, Nokia's Heavy Fall... (Part III), 10/5/10.

2/27/11:

"My main lesson is that fumbling the future is very easy. I have done it myself! The future looks clear only in hindsight. It is rather easy to practically stare at it and not see it. It follows that those who did make the future happen deserve double and triple credit. They not only saw the future, but also trusted their vision to follow through, and translated vision to execution. We should all recognize the incredible contributions of those who did not fumble the future."

-- Moshe Y. Vardi, Communications of the ACM, Vol 54 No 3, 2011

We should not forget that Nokia very much shaped the present, which is the platform for the future. That is to say, putting visions in place is tenacious work, and it is hard, in that context, to make the next vision wave happen especially when it undoes the one that has and is being unfolded. Hard, but enough exceptions prove that industry incumbents can bring "creative waves of destruction" upon themselves, pre-empting other sources. And then there's the cheese lesson.

5/29/11 Mobile Moves

 

2/10/11 More Books

On Play

On Imitation/Applying Analogy from Biology and Evolution

On Computing and the Changing Social Fabric 

Roots: Free Association

"In America I encountered sorts of associations of which, I confess, I had no idea, and I often admired the infinite art with which the inhabitants of the United States managed to fix a common goal to the efforts of many men and to get them to advance to it freely."

--  Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America (originally published in 1835-1840)

Society on Technology:

2/10/11 On Books

There are so very many books...

Afterwards, when she regained her eyes, she read Shakespeare, and thought to herself, "Why is any other book needed?"

-- Thomas W. Higginson, of Emily Dickinson

"If I read a book and it makes my whole body so cold no fire can ever warm me, I know that is poetry. If I feel physically as if the top of my head were taken off, I know that is poetry. These are the only ways I know it. Is there any other way?"

-- Emily Dickinson

"I think we ought to read only the kind of books that wound and stab us...We need the books that affect us like a disaster, that grieve us deeply, like the death of someone we loved more than ourselves, like being banished into forests far from everyone, like a suicide. A book must be the axe for the frozen sea inside us."

-- Franz Kafka

In recommending Jacobsen's Six Stories, Rilke offers a quite different perspective, though he still inclines to selectivity:

"A whole world will envelop you, the happiness, the abundance, the inconceivable vastness of a world. Live for a while in these books, learn from them what you feel is worth learning, but most of all love them. This love will be returned to you thousands upon thousands of times, whatever your life may become - it will, I am sure, go through the whole fabric of your being, as one of the most important threads among all the threads of your experiences, disappointments, and joys."

--  Rainer Maria Rilke, letter 2

As for me, there are books that are utilitarian things that I dip and dive around in, quickly finding what is useful to me.

And there are books I allow to enter me. To become part of my consciousness. A slant to the lens I wear that I more clearly see; an undoing, loosening affectation and corseting convention; a deepening in the well of my empathy; a rousing to disquiet and urge me; an invitation to an awed hallelujah in celebration of beauty in the created and creation.  And other stuff.

My brain freezes on lists, terrified knowing it will be incomplete and so a showing of my limitations. Oh yeah. A reminder of the folly of conceit -- but I covered affectation... You see, that is what it is like to live with my brain. Oh, do feel sorry for me! ;-)

2/11/11: This, from Edison's personal diary (which he only kept for a few days) (linked from this page on the Rutgers Edison site):

Edison's Diary, on Rutgers The Thomas Edison Papers archive.

Image source: Edison's Diary, on Rutgers The Thomas Edison Papers archive.

 

2/11/11 Google Celebrates Edison

Another cool search logo today!  Highlighting Edison's numerous inventions and sketches, emphasizing their role in design! Way to go Google! 

And thanks to that prompting, this:

"For a long time very little was known about Thomas Edison. Then, in 1978, a group of historians from Rutgers University got together to form the Edison Papers Project. Their aim was to compile, edit and publish Thomas Edison's writings. Little did they realize what they were letting themselves in for. The custodians of his record books have so far discovered in the region of 3500 detailed note books and approximately four million pages that the indefatigable Edison poured his thoughts upon throughout his working years! And they are still counting!

The notebooks give a wonderful insight into the processes Edison used to be so prolific as an inventor. The researchers liken his abundance of ideas and observations to those of the man voted "the Genius of the Millennium" - Leonardo da Vinci. That's high praise indeed. The pragmatic might argue that Edison was the greater for using his genius to be so usefully productive. However, a glance through Edison's notebooks is like dancing with a tornado ... his mind spins all over the place.

What is immediately apparent is that Edison's mind wandered through a vast spectrum of unrelated projects in an apparent free flow of associations. This is a critical point to understand. The mind grows through the number of connections it can make. Genius finds relationships between the most diverse things."

...

"Frequently, one of Edison's inventions would spawn another in an unrelated field, which in turn would give rise to another in a different area of interest. It's as though by pushing, experimenting and thinking in one direction, Edison simultaneously benefitted in all the other projects that he was working on. This points to the concept of the holographic mind. Affect one part and you affect all the parts. Nothing is wasted."

...

"Many of Thomas Edison's greatest ideas only emerged after he had made hundreds of drawings and cartoons. General Electric has a collection of Edison's sketches and doodles that he made about the electric light bulb. Most of them are undecipherable. But each of them had meaning for Edison and moved his thinking along closer and closer to the goal."

-- Scribbling towards success! Why the pen is mightier!, The Brain Squeezers

The Rutgers site on Edison provides a wonderful window, allowing us to access Edison and his team's notes and sketches.

Some more careful, conveying the design, like this:

Others just sketches of design ideas like this:

Image source: Rutgers Edison Document Archives

And others more sketchy still. Just grabbing the tail of an idea as it flew by, and pinning it down in the notebook. But you can see from the two sketches above, and the dates on them, that Edison and his team were experimenting -- on paper, too.

2/11/11 Chuckles

Picking Ryan up from school, we overheard this conversation:

Are you calling me a nerd?

Don't worry, nerds are better than jocks. After high school, nerds rule.

Ryan wondered if this was true. I said, "think Microsoft, Google, Facebook,... Pick your nerd." Ryan liked that.

This from Edison's diary:

"Dot laughed heartily when I told her about a church being a heavenly fire-escape."

I laughed heartily at that (and more; Edison is witty; a little pompous at times, but I think he earned our tolerance there)!

At Ryan's school's variety concert at the end of last year, a blonde and a brunette MC'd part of the concert, playing the stereotype:

Brunette: What do you call a smart blonde?

Blonde: dunno

Brunette: A golden retriever

Blonde: What do you call a brunette?

Brunette: What?

Blonde: Lonely

2/11/11 (Im)maturity Models

It occurred to me that maturity models (like CMM) induce, even if unintentionally, the wrong value set. If we looked at an organization mechanistically following its documented processes we'd be encouraged to think it more mature. But hold on a moment! It takes more maturity, in the wisdom sense, to fully embrace a chaordic way of being, even or especially when the organization is very big.

Too many EA teams, when just starting up (yes, that is still happening), think that the first order of business is to conduct an inventory assessment and drive to consistency and a standardized, homogenous IT landscape. They think that understanding the business is something an EA team should only tackle once it has "climbed the maturity curve" -- meaning, once it has driven out chaos and rationalized all of IT. Sure, chaordic means where it is important to create consistency, that is done. For example, where critical relationships are enabled through consistency in the technology firmament. But trying to standardize everything, regardless of where underlying diversity in the business thrives on technological diversity, is a recipe for creating a lot of resistance to EA with the net effect that "maturity" seems an impossible goal. We need to undo the association between "maturity" and rationalized, precision seeking organizations, at least as far as IT and product development is concerned.

Right... I need to read the updated GAO Guide, don't I?! (Organizational Transformation: A Framework for Assessing Improving Enterprise Archtiecture Management. Vers. 2.0) Given a scan (it's 1:30am; that's all I can allow at just this moment), one can fit chaordic within this maturity framework, but the whole notion, I think, conveys a message of moving towards more planning and rigor, more de rigueur... Fine. But we need to think about how we communicate that maturity should be viewed in context. An organization may embrace very ad hoc/on-the-fly, highly experimental and laissez-faire approaches in parts of the business where that is the adaptive response to uncertainty (inherent in "revolutionary" innovation) and hence be more mature than one that insists on a leveled process and technology landscape throughout. The framework doesn't disallow this, I don't think (given a cursory scan). But does it encourage it? As I said, in my experience, too many teams think that "as is" equals inventory and "to be" equals standards and integration. Without regard for differences across the business (which may be artificial artifacts of idiosyncratic choices, or deep differences in business domains driving these differences in the technology landscape) or where the businesses are headed.

When we go off on the wrong tack on what EA is, then build in a rigorous management process to ensure its enaction, I have a hard time saying we're reaching a higher maturity plateau...

2/11/11 We're Headed into Such a Different World!

From keyboard to Kinect to... mind control!

From personal computers to ... personal satellites!

Yet some things take a while to change!

2/12/11: Caveat: We subscribed to Scientific American for a while, mainly because I wanted to have "stretch" ideas around us, to pique interest and stimulate dinner conversations and so forth, just giving the kids a sense of what their world could be like.  

The notion that we might be able to dump our thoughts directly into computers (BCI) is quite something. Edison, in his diary, noted a discussion he had with his daughter and other lady guests and he mused that it is just as well our thoughts are not transparently available to all. You may be astonished to find that I withhold many, given how many I share... why just this morning I first thought how much France does to support those who counter social injustice in the world (including knighting Johnny Clegg). At that, a cup-half-full, smart-alecky voice in my mind interposed with "Just as people distract themselves from their own flaws by dwelling on those of others, so too does France and the United States, pre-eminently." Well, fortunately that's not a much heard voice in my mind. A kinder voice hurried in the next thought: "We all have to contend with being flawed. The important thing is to have a social conscience, and France and the United States do well to play that role for the world. We are then most called upon to live by it."

Even so, I withhold many (thoughts; I'm less successful with judgments, though I strive there too). Why just a minute ago... I was undressing this idea. Just teasing. But that's the point, isn't it? The easier it becomes to pout (oh what a lovely Freudian/finger slip that is! I meant pour but pout is too perfect!) thoughts into computers, the more of them there'll be cluttering up the place. Imagine -- more wordy than this journal! Incomprehensible! And yet. How incomprehensible was a mechanized "brooding hen" before electricity? Edison's diary is so wonderful -- it is too bad he didn't keep it longer (than just a few days)... Was it because writing it took too much of his day? The part he wanted also to give to journaling his work thoughts? Think what it'll be like, to have thoughts captured if only we want to?

And if we don't... There are even rockier moral seas ahead!

But first we have to survive this moral crisis. This crisis of consumption and waste. There are signs of promise. Too little too late? Last March I quoted this, but it bears repeating:

"Necessity may well be the mother of invention. But if we continue to manufacture mountains of toxic stuff, invention may soon become the mother of necessity." Marty Neumeier, The Designful Company, 2009

Moral seas. When I was a teenager going to a convent this notion kept me on the straight and narrow: the nuns who taught me, once dead, would be freed from time, and their spirits would be able to come back in time to my present and watch all I did -- and maybe even all I thought. Wikileaks had nothing on my imagination! And saints I didn't know were far less inhibiting than nuns I did know! :-) At this juncture, we are judged by our observed outward acts -- and I feel like a transparent hypocrite driving an SUV (bought several years ago, before we acquired this mounting awareness; in the summer it's great for carting kayaking/camping gear to departure points, but in the winter it sure is overkill). As our expectations around privacy get reshaped, and values shift, the questions and concerns of "good" and "evil" and also of policing society to make it safe for those who strive-falter-strive to be good, will shift too. 

It's the in-between times that concern me. The times when we're sorting out how to deal with what we unleash on the world. Like this in-between time, when we consume so much and hang so much of our aspiration and self-concept on consumption and hurt this remarkable -- and surely in all the universe rare -- emerald and azure planet, impeding our own abilities as the human race to thrive, perhaps even survive, on it! 

This is not unprecedented. We have visited mass destruction on peoples before. But with each advance, our capacity to wreak devastation and to break bodies and hearts just increases.

[If one is to write on a Saturday, it should be tragicomedy, shouldn't it? Smart-aleck! Voices! Mind #1, you too #2! And the rest of you!

Wait! How is it, do you think, that Edison got so much thinking done with only two voices? Omw!! That's it! Only two voices to attend to! I'm going to have to...]
 

In the November/December 2010 issue of CrossTalk, in an interview, Grady Booch said:

"What makes it most difficult to move from vision to execution is something that swirls around the problems of design and the problems of organization. How do I best architect a system? How do I best architect my organization to deliver that system? As it turns out, there’s this wonderful, delicious cusp of the technical and the social, and that’s where the sweet spot for delivery is in education. How does one attend to the fiercely technical problems, but at the same time be cognitive of the social issues as well? I swear there are days that I go into an organization where I’ll show up as über geek and other days I have to show up as Dr. Phil, slapping faces around, saying, “My God, what are you thinking?” So, in terms of where I think things need to go—well, for people delivering software-intensive systems, I think our education system has to attend to that dance between the technical and the social."

Architectural Leadership Workshop anyone? We have really led the industry in working at "this wonderful, delicious cusp of the technical and the social" have we not? Martin Griss was very aware of the people issues in reuse/product family/platform development, and I was fortunate to work on projects shaped by him when I joined HP Labs. Then I had the great privilege of working with Derek Coleman on the Team Fusion team, and again the people/team side (along with architecture and Evo) was so central as to be part of our identity. All of which laid the groundwork of values and mindset for our architecture work inside HP in the 90's and then Bredemeyer Consulting's work from the late 90's. Well, Dana came at this from a different tack, namely that of software architect in HP's Operating Systems Lab -- one who had been drawn to systems design even while an undergrad in CS, working with the likes of Buckminster Fuller and Russ Ackoff one Summer, and taking a class from Douglas Hofstadter in the timeframe that he was completing Gödel, Escher, Bach -- so Dana was one of the students who got a draft copy and reviewed it in class! (The only thing more valuable than Dana Bredemeyer's marked up draft would be Hofstadter's own, right?)
 

Software visualization is an interesting special case of visualization, and the broader work in visualization, I think, has much to offer our field. Dana pointed me to David McCandless wonderful TED talk on The beauty of data visualization. He makes a neat "visual and verbal channel" point, which is worth thinking about in modeling as well as presentation design.

He says, referring to research by Tor Nørretranders (a screenshot of the image McCandless was talking about shown on the right):

"Your sense of sight is the fastest. It has the same bandwidth as a computer network. Then you have touch, which is about the speed of a USB key. And then you have hearing and smell, which has the throughput of a hard disk. And then you have poor, old taste, which is like barely the throughput of a pocket calculator. And that little square in the corner, 0.7 percent, that’s the amount we’re actually aware of. So a lot of your vision — the bulk of it is visual, and it’s pouring in. It’s unconscious. And the eye is exquisitely sensitive to patterns in variations in color, shape and pattern. It loves them, and it calls them beautiful. It’s the language of the eye."

He uses a lovely visualization to illustrate that point about things the eye calls beautiful! And then (I love this):

"And if you combine that language of the eye with the language of the mind, which is about words and numbers and concepts, you start speaking two languages simultaneously, each enhancing the other. So, you have the eye, and then you drop in the concepts. And that whole thing — it’s two languages both working at the same time."

-- David McCandless, The beauty of data visualization, TED Jul 2010

I expect McCandless means, by language of the eye, not just the mind's processing of the seen (what is out there) but the envisaged -- that is, the language of the mind's eye.  I like and use Feynman's story from his childhood, when he realized one also thinks in pictures:

Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman. Image of Feynman from No ordinary genius: the illustrated Richard Feynman.

Image of Feynman as a boy from No ordinary genius: the illustrated Richard Feynman. Quote is from Engineering and the mind's eye, by Eugene S. Ferguson.

We have this interplay going on in our minds between visual and verbal, and when we add a visual dimension to a concept, we increase the power of our cognitive and communicative tools. When we express a set of concepts visually, we leverage the huge visual power that just works for us much of the time without any conscious effort -- seeing relationships and patterns, anomalies, gaps, etc. 

"If you're navigating a dense information jungle, coming across a visualization is a relief, it's like coming across a clearing in the jungle." -- David McCandless, The beauty of data visualization, TED Jul 2010

On Friday I bought a set of history books that overlap with some we already have, but did so because their raison d'être is to provide visual maps of history, and I so loved that spatial contextualization of events. It made things that hadn't, make sense. It drew me in, and provided markers to anchor memory of events to. It is fun! The books also make other use of visuals, with plenty of art and photographs, and the scenes of history are much more alive in my mind with my visual sense activated (along with my verbal).

Anyway, McCandless goes on to make the point that we can use visualization to alter perspectives/change views. He looks at data set one way (military budget) and demonstrates the impact of the comparison of US spending to other nations when seen visually. He then adds information (military budget relative to GDP) to show how what we make of it shifts as we add information, again made vivid through visualizations that make relationships (like relative size) pop out. That richer picture can lead us to change our views, and McCandless quotes Hans Rosling: "Let the dataset change your mindset." [Actually, it was Florence Nightingale who is attributed with first clueing in on the power of, and using, visual rhetoric.] McCandless goes on to point out that if it can change your mindset, maybe it can change your behavior. He spent a month creating a visualization that only filled 2 pages of his book! But, he observes, the resulting visualization is a form of knowledge compression, that squeezes an enormous amount of information into small space.

2/24/11: Ok, so the thoughts we're conscious of happen in terms of language and images. Much goes on below that conscious level.

"But the brain does much more than just recollect
It inter-compares, it synthesizes, it analyzes
it generates abstractions

...
The brain has it's own language
For testing the structure and consistency of the world"

--Carl Sagan 'A Glorious Dawn' ft Stephen Hawking (Cosmos Remixed)by John Boswell

And yet we wouldn't know our own thoughts but for them entering consciousness, and the miracle of getting it out of our heads and making it accessible to others to enable interaction and extension is through language (and symbol) and images. Yep, that visual drum...

2/13/11 Visualization

Via Dana:

Via #codemap on Twitter:

In the software space:

 

Other:

 

Happy Valentine's Day!2/14/11 Happy Valentine's Day!

To you!

2/14/11 Defy and So Lead Reason

In an earlier post I wrote (of Miyazaki and his anime movies):  One who blends literature and visualization in an exquisite art form that lets the imagination defy and so lead reason.

I realized that that is what we do during early system conception. What's that? Let imagination defy and so lead reason. It's that "what if?" and "why not?" phase.

There are many wonderful snippets of history -- including Kennedy's famous " I dream of things that never were, and ask why not?" and leading moments in Silicon Valley/Hewlett and Packard history) in Jim March's leadership movie.

Related posts:

 

In the architect competency framework, the original sketch of which was largely Dana's work, I added that "(stick)" and I have had push-back/questioning on the intention there. I meant that it isn't good enough to just make (architecturally significant) decisions, but we must do what it takes to ensure the decision is enacted, giving stability and "ground under our feet" to move forward. I didn't and don't mean to be inflexible and immutable, but if everything is constantly shifting there is no basis for integrity.

Dana and I were talking about this (following up on some points a chief architect made in discussions last week):

Decisions are a way of creating stability (hence predictability) in a context (/in the presence) of uncertainty. Key architectural decisions enable us to move forward. So we must make them, and you could say that the "last responsible moment" rule is misleading (as a blanket rule) for architectural decisions -- in the case of many architecturally significant decisions, we have to make them at the earliest responsible moment! Well, there is a paradox here -- the earliness/uncertainty and the need for stability. So we make key decisions (put stakes in the ground), and by making them and exposing them to the system reasoning and review, we shake them about and stress-test them early, so we gain confidence in them or change them -- early, when the cost of doing so is less. That is, we make these decisions tentatively, deliberately setting out to learn more -- as cheaply and quickly as possible, with pretendotypes or sketch mockups and models and code prototypes and whatever fits the magnitude and degree and consequence of the decision risk. We do this with a great degree of imagination and creativity so we can move forward quickly, knowing what and where our stakes are, and being poised to move them as we learn more.

We make the future (at least within the scope of what we touch) more predictable, by making decisions that form it. That takes boldness, and requires experience. We apply our knowledge, experience, intuitions from the past, and all the data we can afford to muster to illuminate the present, including the forces and trends that signify what will be important in the future, and we make decisions. We test those that need to be explored and validated. And we socialize the decisions, so they are followed, enacted, applied.

Socialized, because these decisions mean that we have excluded a whole lot of other possible options in the broader decision/solution space, and we have to convince others of the choice. There are lots of perspectives, and architecture by nature is working to achieve strategic system-level outcomes that would not be achieved if local concerns of some party with a vested interest (a "stakeholder") was to dominate the solution and so skew the choice/outcome in their favor. And socialized because moving into the future often means we're doing something different than what was status quo for us. Decisions make a difference to what we would do anyway; if not, we would have to seriously ask ourselves why we'd make it a part of the architecture decision set, adding to the volume that others need to grok and follow and govern. So by nature, architecture decisions tend to be exactly those that need us to be motivating, persuading, influencing, educating, coaching, and even governing.  So that's the stick part. Stick, as in sticky. As in followed. Adhered to.

But there's also the baseball bat. Well. Feather.

2/15/11: As different perspectives go: Here's Alistair Cockburn reading "Every story has two sides" -- a witty and perceptive reminder of differences in perception and perspective.

The "what if?" airplane design image below humorously illustrates the point of how a design would be sub-optimized if the interests/perspective of one group holds sway over the interests of the system as a whole. The image is on the Quintech blog, though the source according to them is the TU Delft. (I got wind of it via Daniel Store, whose manager introduced it to him.)

The image is on the Quintech blog, though the source according to them is the TU Delft

Image source: TU Delft

2/15/11 How About Watson?!

Impressive!

"No one was cheering for me," he says. "It was at their (IBM's) home arena. It was an away game for humanity."

-- Ken Jennings, quoted in 'Jeopardy!' champs compete against computer, USA Today

(Dana and Ryan, as a combined team, might possibly have beaten Watson. They're good! But isn't that a more fair test? Combined results across larger teams? I'd love to see Watson's architecture including the problem solving strategies!)
 

Jigme Norbu http://www.zenwires.com/dalai-llama-nephew-accidentally-killed-by-suv-in-florida/22906/

 

2/15/11 Our Hearts Cry

Our community is reeling with the news of Jigme Norbu's death in a traffic accident last evening. He is the nephew of the Dalai Lama and was doing a 300-mile walk in Florida to raise awareness for the movement for "meaningful autonomy" for Tibet. Our hearts cry so for his family.

Valentine's Day will always be a sad day for the Norbu family. And a reminder to all of us that Jigme Norbu lost his life on Valentine's Day in a peaceful walk to raise awareness for Tibet's plea.

 

Image source: Zen Wires

2/23/11: Jigme's brother and two of his sons will complete the walk.
 

Interaction between form and function produces qualities of the systemIn software architecture, we have two broad sets of forces -- designing to meet the purpose of the system (a functional slant) in its use context(s), and designing to meet structural needs (often framed up as qualities like scalability; they are the qualities that the business cares about, and users too but generally only indirectly, in so far as they bleed through and impact user experience).

The pressures of delivering functionality for and in the moment skews the attention so that we run into structural issues (scalability, evolvability, even predictability of function/proneness to errors). In such a world, very talented experienced people who can "save the day" sorting out how to eek the next stretch of life out of the system are sought after and rewarded. Often with the title of architect. (Ghostbusters anyone?) Ignoring the interaction between design of form to serve function and design focused on structural form to meet points of structural strain or tension or demand, gets us into this situation. In other words, ignoring the need to shape the form that serves function with structural demands in mind, runs us into a wall of "technical debt" that grows ever more menacing.

The "what if?" airplane cartoon I "quoted" yesterday (above), makes the point that if we focus on one area of functional or structural concern in isolation, we get a system that is ridiculous and dysfunctionally out-of-balance. I have often recommended to architects that they take one (major/area of) concern, like security, and focus their design on accomplishing the critical (defining) functionality and just that concern and the related properties or system qualities (teasing out the concern). And then take another, and focus on that in isolation. Well, of course this is a ridiculous go-nowhere activity, especially when we're already fighting off the "BDUF curse." So why? The motivation is to find the ideas that surface when we do this, so that we have more grist for our "and" integrative (making connections, innovative) thinking. It frees us, and this freedom lets us find ideas we aren't open to when we focus down in on finding a solution that balances across a set of concerns. In other words, it is just a brainstorming/ideating aid. And we need those, because human brains like to take short-cuts and these preclude all kinds of interesting, good ideas. We can't do too much, or we'd never get done, but it helps to do some of this in quick-and-dirty, on-the-fly small team model-storming (as I've come to call it) just to loosen up our frames of reference and get more inventive, and have more ideas in circulation.

Definitions

Central concerns

Key Decisions

Decisions in VAP

System Architecture

Reference Architecture

I read JD Meier's discussion of Reference Architecture (under the section Reference Architecture Examples) and it seemed like you could drop the word "Reference" and you'd be describing the initial creation of the architecture for an application or system. I think the wording needs to shift (to accommodate my small mind) to make it clear that when you have a Reference Architecture you're starting not with a blank whiteboard (figuratively speaking), but with already (more or less) populated architecture views, and working from that. He says: 

"The beauty of the reference architecture is that you can shape the application before you implement it."

You could equally say:

The beauty of the architecture is that you can shape the application before you implement it.

To distinguish the two more clearly, one could say:

The beauty of the reference architecture is that some of the shaping decisions have already been thought through (and presumably proven in other implementations), and you can leverage this to move more quickly and with greater confidence. When you start to whiteboard your architecture, you have candidate models to start with, improve upon, and specialize to meet the needs of your specific application. etc.

Or something like that. The key being to differentiate the value of a reference architecture from the value of an architecture.

A reference architecture is simply a prototypical architecture for a space of applications (or products or systems). It is more than just a "straw man," having some authority. It provides guidance, and may be used more prescriptively, or more suggestively. For example, in a more prescriptive case, it would be the starting point for application architectures in that domain and deviations from it would need to be motivated; it may be specialized to the specific application, sketchy areas refined and elaborated, decisions added, etc, but it should not be ignored or altered without justification. Or a Reference Architecture may be referred to simply for guidance, so the architecture team has a reference point from which to draw ideas and they informally, to themselves, justify deviations as a matter of diligence and education. In that case, it offers guidance that will tend to lead to somewhat more convergence and consistency, but doesn't prescribe or mandate this.

A reference architecture is created by a broader scoped group like an industry architecture body (or a vendor) or the enterprise architects or portfolio architects for an organization, with the intention that it creates a "leg-up" to be used if not as a starting point for architectures in that domain, then at least a point of reference. It is a way of sharing architectural know-how, consolidating some of the lessons learned architecting similar systems. And it is a way of bringing about more consistency in approach and across systems, with a view to achieving other goals like ease of integration or more mobility of developers across applications (lowering the learning curve). Etc.

I've had architects, chartered by their manager to create a "reference architecture," ask me what they should create. They didn't want to ask the manager what he means (even though there is quite some spread in how the term is used), because then both he and they would look a little at a loss. So I asked what would be useful for their application architects to have done to assist them as they design and evolve (most) applications under the rubric of the reference architecture, and what would be useful for them as domain architects (in the service of business strategies, goals and concerns) to work towards making common (concepts, architectural elements, shared services, common patterns and approaches, etc.). I suggested they do the "one-block pedestrian mall." To actually provide high-leverage value in a small but meaningful chunk of architectural work that they'd do very quickly and put a flag on and call Reference Architecture Draft 0.1. That's "right hand" tactically oriented work. Good, but use it to also occasion figuring out what the more strategic contribution needs to be; that left-hand work. In other words, if no-one knows what the thing means but think they (ought to) want it, use that to your advantage to probe and define it to be something useful to your stakeholders and to you working at your architectural scope. It's like you've been handed a stretch of rope and you can tie yourself in knots with it or use it to bootstrap something useful. So, something useful? Well, that's context dependent, but chances are you'll decide to start with a handful of principles and/or a conceptual model (something like the reference architecture used for the pet shop application). Be guided by what your organization needs to make consistent and shared (wrapping architectural/design know-how into guidance, decisions, implementations) across your architectural scope (the projects under the "umbrella" or decision arc/envelope of your architecture). What would really make a substantive difference to users, to developers, to the business? We're trading off enabling something with constraining that and other things. So we seek to be minimal and to show value.

A platform architecture (in this case, the architecture of a product family or line, not an OS architecture) may perhaps be viewed as a special case of a reference architecture (one where the scope of application and specialization is specific to products in the family/product line), but it is generally prescriptive, and its decision set may reach farther (for example, including blueprints/specifications for shared components). (The minimalist principle applies here too.). It will often come "bundled" with platform artifacts that embed the architecture (for example, in a "framework," including designated infrastructure, implemented shared services, etc.).  

2/16/11 Organizing Models

I was looking for a reference in past journal posts to Dana saying "decisions create ground under our feet" and on that hunt, came across this:

the organizing model that elevates data to information to wisdom/insight/inspiration and action

It occurs to me that is important -- the path from data to knowledge and wise/informed action involves making useful connections, and organizing models do a first level of pulling together and connecting data, presenting it in such a way as to enable us to make a fresh set of higher level connections. From a mighty wash of data, a veritable deluge, we see what to hone in on and what to occlude. Without such strategies we're lost in data. Anyway, the "organizing model" could be seen as a design for information visualization.

Then what we do, for example, with our Competitive Landscape Map, following the leadership of David Sibbet/The Grove, is use the organizing model not just to organize and communicate the information but also in interactive group elicitation, directing attention (a form of structured brainstorming). The design of the information presentation also guides and directs attention in drawing out/on the underlying information.

Yesterday I spent some time looking at Tom Gilb's Impact Estimation Tables -- Tom tweeted out from a seminar Dana gave in Norway saying we're missing Impact Estimation Tables, so I followed up. It's an exciting approach/addition to the toolkit, as it is one of those organizing models/thinking tools that supports reasoning across decisions and views. You can get an idea in Kai Gilb's online Evo book, or buy Tom's Competitive Engineering book. Tom's books are the kind of thing that I think ought to be cornerstone books in any software library. I mean the man is a pioneer of iterative and incremental.  I should say, Tom's enthusiasm is both his own greatest asset and his undoing, because he can come across as wanting a world of i dotting and t crossing when everything is moving too fast for anything more than the sensation of sufficiency in i's and t's... We shouldn't confuse advocating with insisting. And we (as a community, and personally) do need to recognize the value he contributed with his 1988 book introducing Evo (Principles of Software Engineering Management). It is huge! So I've been reading around in his Competitive Engineering book (though I did read it in previous drafts, then known as the pLanguage book), and I find it definitely warrants more of my attention!

"The stakeholders received business value for their money (bang for bucks), and the programmers no longer wrote code; they created business value!! Their work had suddenly got meaning, and they loved it."

-- Jens Egil Evensen, Tom Gilb - an example from Jens, May 11, 2008 
 

Ryan pointed out a bumper sticker which said:

bumper sticker wisdom

Dana saw another on the same car that said "honk if you understand punctuated equilibrium." Sounds disruptive. ;-)

A drive-by lesson in innovation!

On the subject of innovation, this video (via a Tom Gilb tweet) is amazing: ☼Bloomberg Game Changers: Steve Jobs

There was a quip in a video I watched recently (can't remember which it was), that went along the lines of "anyone can innovate! What? I have a garage!" Or something like that. Spunk. And an empty garage. Or a dorm room.     

As for the democratization of innovation, this is interesting:

"What the team discovered, described in a paper that is under review for publication, was that the amount of money individual consumers spent making and improving products was more than twice as large as the amount spent by all British firms combined on product research and development over a three-year period."

 -- Innovation Far Removed From the Lab, Patricia Cohen, New York Times, February 9, 2011

Like this, folk -- like this! (Hey, it's great comedy, if nothing else. But just think where we can go with that!)

Isn't the Internet great? Like giving us access to this: Guy Steele's classic OOPSLA'98 presentation, Growing a Language, also on video! (Thanks to Brian Foote's tweet, and Google videos!)

6/26/11: Interesting contrasts in wikipedia page on punctuated equilibrium and An interview with Jerry Coyne author of The Mismeasure of Man on Stephen Jay Gould.  Quotes from the interview:

"To people that knew him he was a somewhat arrogant and blustering individual. But we all know that jerks can produce magnificent work."

"I’ve always felt that we evolutionary biologists are the most fortunate of all scientists, because the whole purview of life is our study. On any given day, I’ll be reading papers on molecular biology, on biogeography, on physiology, on embryology, on the fossil record. It all rolls into the process of evolution. There is always something exciting that comes up and I think it’s Gould and Dawkins who best convey that excitement to the general reader."

The latter quote sounds like our field and its breadth of scope (systems of all kinds to learn from, software applications in every field of human endeavor, and all the fields that are brought in due to the human side of developing socio-technical systems), and Grady Booch in conveying excitement, deep and broad command, and excellence in rhetoric!

2/17/11 How to Settle Technical Debt -- Manager's Guide from Cutter

Cutter Consortium has a new guide titled How to Settle Your Technical Debt: A Manager's Guide, covering:

Introduction: Technical Debt -- A New Paradigm for Software Development by Israel Gat.
Chapter 1: Modernizing the DeLorean System -- Comparing Actual and Predicted Results of a Technical Debt Reduction Project by John Heintz.
Chapter 2: The Economics of Technical Debt by Stephen Chin, Erik Huddleston, Walter Bodwell, and Israel Gat.
Chapter 3: Technical Debt -- Challenging the Metaphor by David Rooney.
Chapter 4: Manage Project Portfolios More Effectively by Including Software Debt in the Decision Process by Brent Barton and Chris Sterling.
Chapter 5: The Risks of Acceptance Test Debt by Ken Pugh.
Chapter 6: Transformation Patterns for Curing the Human Causes of Technical Debt by Jonathon Michael Golden.
Chapter 7: Infrastructure Debt -- Revisiting the Foundation by Andrew Clay Shafer.
Chapter 8: Revolution in Software -- Using Technical Debt Techniques to Govern the Software Development Process by Israel Gat.
Chapter 9: Technical Debt Assessment -- A Case of Simultaneous Improvements at Three Levels by Israel Gat.
Chapter 10: Avoiding System Bankruptcy -- How to Pay Off Your Technical Debt by Amir Kolsky.
 

2/22/11: Hear ye, hear ye: Technical debt as comedy routine. :-)
 

"Because software engineering texts are uniformly amongst the most boring writings in all of human literary output, we won't have a text for this course. (The sole exception I've found is the first edition (2000) of Bernd Bruegge and Allen Dutoit's Object-Oriented Software Engineering.) "

-- Shriram Krishnamurthi, course overview, Software System Design, Brown U., 2009 (and again in 2010)

A nudge. And yet... When it is our field that placed books and other forms of pipelined formal publishing (not just books but news and entertainment, magazines, music, movies, ...) under threat as a distribution form, shouldn't our field be open to recommending other formats as sources? So, shouldn't my journal be the replacement to stuffy texts? ;-)

Remember,

"perspective is worth at least 80 IQ points" Alan Kay, by way of Jeff Bezos

and, in particular,

[The] perspective [gained from reading this journal, for example,] is worth at least 80 IQ points!

Uh, yes. I said [the extended part of] that. Well, my word carries some weight... [with the family dog...]

Oh, don't worry! This will stay a quiet backwaters place! Remember, it bears the amulet of words. So ...very ...many ...words. No-one in his right mind would recommend so many words that... just create perspective!

I know I contradict myself. It's very depressing that no-one recommends my journal, but if they did, I'd likely have to put a lid on it again because I use it to think. It is all very well to think "out loud" when the audience is small and friendly -- the latter being easy to assume of people who find their way here following their own interest and who read despite, or because of, the word volume. Depressing? Well, because no-one recommends it, I feel like it must be ...somewhat embarrassing, like no self-respecting software person would want peers to know they sometimes drop by... So, paradox. If you can't handle that, go look in the mirror and ask yourself if you really want to be an architect. Paradox and ambiguity are cohorts of architecting, no matter how boldly we make and assert decisions. Which reminds me... Dana says he thought of asking a group of architects he was working with if they think their spouses are absolutely rational all the time. And when they, incredulous at so daft a question, said "of course not" he'd say "and you picked your him/her!" His point being that even the person we most love and admire -- and chose -- isn't consistently rational, so why do we expect our managers and peers to be?!  ...Uh, what's that? Your spouse is entirely rational? Oh. That's embarrassing. 

I read the paragraph above to Dana to make sure he as ok with it (it is a family joke that everyone has to watch what they tell me), and he responded by recounting the followership story from The Tales of the Dervishes.  

2/19/11: This courtesy of Ryan, from a Garfield comic (or so he tells me): "What's the difference between a rock and a dog? About 3 IQ points!"
 

2/18/11 Leaders Tell Stories

So this looks like a book to consider: Tell to Win: Connect, Persuade, and Triumph with the Hidden Power of Storyby Peter Gruber. It is reviewed here. See also Art of Purposeful Storytelling interview with Gruber, author of Tell to Win.

This is an interesting read: The Adaptive Function of Literature and the Other Arts, by Joseph (Joe) Carroll
 

Whether we're designing the system, or trying to grok a built system, (for any but a trivial system) we can't hold it entirely in the conscious mind at once. Dana put it this way: in any moment, the full system is incomprehensible. To reason, to bring intentional thinking, experience and judgment to bear, we needs must work on different facets, and interrelate the facets. We do the "threads of reasoning" thinking across views and use views that "pivot" perspective so that we can interrelate aspects of other views. Anyway, I was thrilled to see Christoph Niemann's cartoon "various 14" because it so well speaks to interlocking views. ;-) Niemann is a genius and in my flat land where everyone is a hero, he is a giant of one! I mean, we're talking How to Please Elise (seq. 22) -- that's some visualization!

2/19/11 The "Elephants in the Agile Room"

Philippe Kruchten posted highlights from the 10 year agile celebration event put together by Alistair Cockburn. The "elephants" reveal that some refreshingly candid and probing work was done.

2/19/11 Twitter Architect's Secret Sauce

That got your attention. Evan Weaver's annotated list of distributed systems papers is brilliant: Distributed Systems Primer and Distributed Systems Primer Update.  The slides from his presentation at QCon in 2009 are here: Improving Running Components at Twitter (useful pointers in the comments too).

2/19/11 Good Following is Acting Empowered

The architect raises the productivity ceiling of the team.Dana recounted Idries Shah's "The Nature of Discipleship" from The Tales of the Dervishes(pg 146 of the book, but 148 / 225 gets you to page 146). The title of the story is misleading in this context. Essentially it is about good followership being discerning what needs to be done and doing it without being told. It is an awesome story/lesson for architects, because we are expected to do things without being told -- and without being taught what things we should be doing without being told. It has to do with sensing what needs to be done to bring about the vision/mission. And sensing what needs to be done has much to do with the non-technical, though doing what needs to be done centers in good part on the technical stuff we're accountable for.

The sensing, though, comes of, in Dana's words, shifting our center of gravity from the technical to the business, so we're thinking of technology in business value terms (that sustainability mantra), rather than purely in technical problem solving terms. And that leading up and out, to ensure that the technical stuff gets the wherewithal and the stick-to-it that it needs, that takes time. And odds are, no-one is going to tell you to go lead up and out, because they're gong to think of that as turf encroachment. It's a tricky business, this sensing what needs to be done, once you come out from under the political umbrella your architect was holding over you, and become an architect. Hm, I have to draw that, don't I? I did the architect raising the productivity ceiling of team image, but the architect holding an umbrella over the team, protecting them from political... um... fallout would be good too, don't you think?

If you're concerned about the title to this post, please remember that following presumes a leader, not a controlling manager. (On a somewhat related note, remember this Dilbert on taking ownership?)
 

2/21/11 Connected Dots

On Saturday evening, Daniel (who grew up in Romania) pointed to some Constantin Brâncuşi links, prompted by the Google logo.

Also on Saturday evening,  Dana had me read "Fatima the Spinner and the Tent" from Idries Shah's Tales of the Dervishes. That parallels Steve Jobs commencement address at Stanford. Essentially, the stories encourage us to "follow our Bliss," our passion and values, taking comfort and courage in knowing that later we will look back and see how the dots connect.

On Sunday I got around to reading more about Brancusi on various art museum sites and, of course, wikipedia. It was interesting, again, to see the connected dots:

"Though just an anatomical study, it foreshadowed the sculptor's later efforts to reveal essence rather than merely copy outward appearance." -- wikipedia

"There are idiots who define my work as abstract; yet what they call abstract is what is most realistic. What is real is not the appearance, but the idea, the essence of things." -- Constantin Brâncuşi, wikipedia

I thought that was interesting. Software architecture is like that, isn't it? About finding and expressing the essential structure and nature of the thing. So we struggle with how to talk about it -- abstraction, compression, ...? To me, in advance (of the built system) it is more abstract (as in the mechanism of neo-modern art) though by reference or allusion (metaphor/analogy/symbol/imagery, ..., patterns) we draw in potentially huge influence and experience so compression plays a very important role. Once built (at all, and as the system evolves), compression (the very real, actualized meaning of whole chunks of the system gets compressed into the elements and mechanisms we represent) and abstraction (selectively eliding and occluding detail to reveal the essential) figure. In any event (expressing design intent or reflecting design as built), abstractions are central. I suppose, if I must, I could dance on the head of a pin and say these abstractions (entities in representational form) are compressions (they draw into compact form much meaning).

The neat thing is that whole fields of representation (including aesthetics and semiotics) swoop into relevance. :-)

As for connected dots, we use that concept in architecture too. By articulating our decision rationale, we provide the means to connect the dots from intended to actualized system outcomes. We draw from the experience of our own and our collective past (for example knowledge formalized in patterns, but also which we access informally through conversations with peers), project a future, and connect the dots from the future we desire to create to the past that gives us connections and experience to boldly build on. Of course we encounter surprises, we learn, we adjust our course and our conceived future. And if we reconnect the dots, we create a story from which the next generation of system evolution will learn and build on. 
 

"There are only two or three human stories, and they go on repeating themselves as fiercely as if they had never happened before." -- Willa Cather

"Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new at all." -- Abraham Lincoln

"Everything has been said before, but since no-one listens we have to keep going back and beginning all over again" -- Andre Gide


2/24/11: This is interesting: Unlocking the Mysteries of The Artistic Mind, Psychology Today, July 01, 2009 

 

2/21/11 Status of Our Profession

We have, on the one hand, the Software Craftsmanship Manifesto, and on the other, Capers-Jones perspective on large projects. A lot of good is happening in our field -- if we just look around us we see all kinds of evidence of software that works. Pretty well! Superbly in most cases! But we also have concerns. I think that is healthy. A self-satisfied field would be stagnant, and ours is not that!

 

2/22/11 That's How!

Want to make your architecture memorable? Try something (for example as the lead in to your presentations) along the lines of what is described in this review of Christoph Niemann's book (I need to look at the book, but the description conveys the idea). You don't think I'm serious, do you? Let me at your architecture, and I'll show you how!

Innovation games have nothing on this stuff! And they're good; I'm not knocking them. I'm just saying there's a whole lot of scope for play that gets real work done.

2/22/11 Software Architecture Workshop

I'm getting really excited about the new material going into our Software Architecture Workshop. I decided to keep it to 4 days at least for now, so the pace will have to pick up, but that's good too. The next open workshops are as follows:

This is such an exciting time for architecting because so much is coming together to boost our system design prowess -- and what a good thing that is, because system complexity isn't going to tame meekly. No, we need audacious bold ruffyans to lead us on this, now don't we? ;-)

Well... you could tell someone about the workshop. Oh, I know, who'd want to take a workshop with me... Sigh. Well, Dana's teaching the one in The Netherlands. He was in Europe this month and a group of architects he was working with got so excited about the discussion they were having around their system design they ran out of space on the notepad and one of the architects kept going, drawing on the table to make his point visual -- to show what he meant!  Without noticing, he just kept going right off the page!! (I warn folk not to draw off the paper onto the walls. That happened once, and I was liable for the inked wall... but this was pencil, on a table...)

2/22/11 IBM Got Smart

IBM Rational's marketing has wised up to the "hand-rendered"/sketch animation wave... a little ironic, but also really cool. See for example this one on system complexity (neat auto example -- 10M LOC!). No, I'm teasing/kidding about it being ironic. Hand sketching and visual design tools live well together. It's just that we people need to remember it's not a one-or-the-other world. Quick and dirty sketching has its place. And tools have a place. (We need to evolve our designs, keep them current so that we can continue to be intentional about design changes, new features, rolling learning into the design and so forth, and tools are key to reducing the encumbrance of doing this.) And slick sketch animations have a place. Hey, I watched the ads (complexity, predictability, leadfrogging); they're that cool!!!
 

2/23/11 Useful Tweets

I might just get addicted to Twitter, despite my misgivings... For example, David Curran (@iamreddave) tweeted: Gödel, Escher, Bach the [MIT] video lectures. Right there that's sufficient ROI on a week's worth of daily minutes glancing through the tweet stream! Watching the videos will cost me more time, but the overview looks interesting. I can see some great workouts in my future. ;-) (Last week we got out of doors as the weather was just lovely with temps in the mid-60's, but it's winter again. Alas.)

Brian Foote (@bigballofmud) tweeted "Endosymbiosis or mere Predation? RT @robwalling: What happens after Yahoo acquires you (by 37Signals)." I love Brian's metaphoric allusions! Compressive genius. Anyway, it's an interesting read -- including (many of) the comments.

Other tweets alerted me to

Indeed, I have to say, this procrastination pays huge dividends in... much, much more procrastination! Uh, I mean, educating myself. Yeah, that's it. 

But none of the tweets said anything about flying cars. Hello? It's 2011.

Dude.

2/23/11 Kiva and ProFounder

Kiva (co-founder: Jessica Jackley)

ProFounder (co-founder: Jessica Jackley)

"Pursue your passion. Peel away the boundaries between you and the people you want to work with. If you do that peeling, you can build connections that change you and change the world. In the course of pursuing passion and peeling away boundaries, you become vulnerable. Don’t fight it. Strive for vulnerability – beautiful things can happen out of it. In that same light, here’s my one-liner: never, ever think you are better than anyone else. If you can live like that, and work in the BOP context, then you can really change things." -- Jessica Jackley Flannery, Pop!Tech - Interview With Kiva's Jessica Flannery, Robert Katx, 10/20/07

Another one liner I liked was Premal Shah's "The relationship trumps the issue." People are more important than notions one is pushing.
 

The problem with being a woman ... shouldn't be one! The world is changing fast. Notions of hierarchical organizations that arose to serve the industrial age are crumbling. Not so fast, but hopefully to follow, are notions about power and leadership. "Women's lib" liberated men to play a greater role in their family lives and broke the straightjacket of convention when it comes to showing emotions. Yes, it's a juggle balancing dual careers and aspirations, especially when advancement opportunities open up elsewhere in the country or the world. Yes, it's tough managing the load of kids and work demands. Yet with the demand that both partners play a role, came much greater investment of men in the nurturing relationships and playful side of family life. Now we need to liberate our view of "authority" and allow that a person can lead without exhibiting stereotypical "power" behaviors (like arrogance which is a way of "occupying maximum space"). A person can lead by being vulnerable, and inviting those closer connections that come of vulnerability. And leading through conduits of connectedness. Dominance distances. Yes, it allows for "objectivity" when hard decisions have to be made -- like killing people or projects. Let's have more vulnerability!! Let's experiment our way to more right things, rather than doing wrong things more pseudo-confidently and aggressively. Being determined, seeing clearly, getting things done -- yes. None of that essentially requires power posturing. Vanilla is not the only flavor in leadership, and network facilitative styles have an important place. Our expectation set around behaviors that signal authority need to open up so we accept that vulnerable and humble aren't incompatible with leading and being an authoritative source of visionary where-to and how to get there in a collaborative, community enriching way.

Oh well, I have my uses.

“In the end, we self-perceiving, self-inventing, locked-in mirages are little miracles of self-reference.”

— Douglas R. Hofstadter, I Am a Strange Loop, 2007

And again,

"Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new at all." -- Abraham Lincoln

I think that's the 3rd time I've quoted that. It really ought to be a lot, LOT more!  

For different cultural takes on The Sexual Paradox, look at the difference in the covers of the various translations.  

2/24/11 Quality

Martin Fowler's TradableQualityHypothesis post reminded me to reread my refactoring essaylet on the Bredemeyer site, which is a trim-down of my Refactoring and Lean post from March 2008. I know I stubbornly persist in using "refactoring" assuming a natural interpretation (revising the factoring) which is more general than Martin's definition in his book and on the refactoring site which says:

"Refactoring is a disciplined technique for restructuring an existing body of code, altering its internal structure without changing its external behavior. Its heart is a series of small behavior preserving transformations." 

I do so because refactoring is important in architecture too. I think we're smart enough to have context-sensitive definitions, don't you?  Anyway, now that we've offset any rant about how I use the word refactoring... ;)

Ok, let me say, I think the spirit of refactoring is that it doesn't take away or add functionality, and that is the sense in which it doesn't change behavior. We then open up the concept of "refactoring" to larger scale restructuring, for example to allow more scalability, or to take advantage of parallelization, so improving performance. Or to reduce coupling and create a more balanced distribution of responsibilities (no "god" components), etc., so that the system can be understood and modified with lower impedance. Moreover, poor designs tend to increase proneness to errors (for example, through decreased understandability). Caught, we call them bugs and we try to fix them. Not caught, they leak through our defenses (and sometimes we knowingly let some/untold many out, just deciding to eat it because "best effort" in complex systems must suffice) and become a cost of quality time bomb.

Cost of quality is an opaque term. It really refers the cost of unquality -- the intangible costs in terms of customer perception and damage to brand reputation, and so on, and the tangible costs of rework and patches, settling claims, lost revenue due to service/production outages, etc. Disappointment and frustration costs customers directly and indirectly which impacts customer loyalty and word-of-finger (I can't bring myself to say word-of-mouth in this digital age) advocacy, and translates into lost revenue. There's generally a lot of (grudging) tolerance for software's glitchiness because we want the enablement it gives. But best effort isn't good enough when a competitor far surpasses others and tips the scales of expectation and desire. Designs that otherwise delight are undone by an experience that is just encumbered by shoddiness under-the-covers that bleeds through.

     

Image: David Heinemeier Hansson (DHH) Tweets, 2/25/11, demonstrating that quality issues bleed through to impact user experience... (Apologies to the Xoom team for using these to illustrate when I have no first hand experience with Xoom and there are so many examples one could use. This was just near to hand. The point is well illustrated though. An eager user of a complex/exciting product will likely forgive the occasional glitch (so long as it only costs a bit of frustration, not safety or big money), but there is a quality threshold they expect and will hold a product to.  Here's an alternative view on Xoom.)

2/25/11: Oh, wow, Brian Foote returned to blogging (about time!)... Great post on "Refactoring's original sin."  Under agile, Refactoring became a phase in the process. Hm. 

Reading Brian's post, it occurred to me that we shouldn't sweep the refactoring that we do prompted by new functionality under the rug either. New functionality can make it more clear that we need to restructure -- in particular to factor responsibilities differently, to create more crisp abstractions that separate concerns along somewhat different lines. It's a nice idea to separate changing the structure (and associated testing to make sure we keep extant functionality working) from adding functionality, but pragmatically new functionality may be what brings the opportunity/need to light. So we have refactoring as a "stage" in the "process" and we have refactoring as something we just do... though if the impact is more diffuse, we need do it under the aegis of the architect. This is where we return to recognition that the architect needs to be conscious that he or she can get much good done by working at the level of team culture, shaping and reinforcing values and principles. And as a leader who spends non-trivial cycles leading up and out, educating and getting sponsorship and advocacy from the management team to support a quality orientation that isn't overly pedantic and rigid, but also has no truck with sloppiness that will make project momentum harder and harder to sustain.

Image: Tweets from Bill Wake on 2/28/11

3/6/11: See also: The Impact of Accidental Complexity on Estimates, Jay Fields, February 23, 2011. (In The Art of Change: Fractal and Emergent, I used "gratuitous complexity" for the complexity that is not inherent in the problem, but added by technical debt.)

 

2/25/11 The Extended Human

Ryan delightedly recounted the scene from some after-school social time in his classroom -- 4 kids were seated around a table all on their computers and/or phones, texting and Facebook chatting with each other while they were also talking to one another! That takes the multiple channels notion to a whole new level! These kids are monsters of compute-enhanced living!

 

2/25/11 Common Sense versus Conventional Wisdom

A place holder. ;-)  [I wanted to write a piece about situations where (that uncommon) common sense runs counter to conventional wisdom.]

2/25/11 Point. Counterpoint.

Point: From Trash Cans to Nokia: Is Creativity Innovation?, by Steve Denning, 2/17/11.

'Citing the example of Apple [AAPL], they quote the Apple design team who say: “It’s all bullshit and hot air created to sell consulting projects and to give insecure managers a false sense of security. At Apple, we don’t waste our time asking users, we build our brand through creating great products we believe people will love.”'

-- quoted in User-Led Innovation Can’t Create Breakthroughs, Steve Denning, Feb. 15 2011

Counterpoint: Tapping the Innovative Masses The creative power of technology users awaits mining by companies, says Eric von Hippel, By David Talbot, Technology Review, February 25, 2011

"Basically, nobody ever expected that consumers innovate. It's not in economic theory. It's not in policymaking. The traditional model that has been in place since 1934 [the economist Joseph A. Schumpeter published The Theory of Economic Development that year] is that producers are the innovators. Schumpeter even argued that producers, by what they offer, create user needs. Because there was an assumption that producers were innovators, nobody looked at individual consumers to see if they innovated. Now that we've taken a look, we find out it's twice as large as producer innovation in consumer categories."

-- Tapping the Innovative Masses, David Talbot, Technology Review, February 25, 2011

I think there are some interesting points about user-led innovation. The first is that innovation is democratized in the sense that individuals are using their wherewithal to create incremental, and in some case quite revolutionary, in cost or concept terms, advances on extant products and even invent new ones. Ok, the beneficiaries of each innovation may be limited to the user or a small circle, and we could quibble and say that it is only an innovative creation, not an innovation, unless significant economic value accrues to customers or the producer -- that is if the creation is leveraged into economic value at scale.  The point is that on aggregate the phenomenon becomes economically very interesting --  individuals are winning the battle for a piece of their own wallet with their homebrew innovations and are doing so in large numbers. Do we need to rethink the economists definition of "innovation" when vast numbers of new "products" with incremental or revolutionary new features, applications or cost structures are being created by users? Of course, what we would include for consideration here is a slippery slope... but if we'd consider it an innovation coming out of a company shouldn't we consider it an innovation if created by an individual user?

The second is that these innovative creations represent a source of innovative designs that producers may capitalize and leverage. They are already prototyped! Yes, sure there are more ideas than resources to fund them all, and tough "bets" have to be placed. And some ideas will be before their time. Others may have viable market of one, and that's now filled. That said, when a user can hack a solution for a fraction of the cost of one on the market, for example, there's some merit to taking note. Yes, industry incumbents have lots of ideas too. The point is that the big idea that will delight users may come from a innovative user who is working in advance of research labs. More grass-roots funding options are emerging. Great. Industry incumbents should be looking at these too, not just "crowd-sourced" angel investors...       

One thing that the "Apple design team" was missing, is that they are designing consumer products -- that is, products they themselves use and understand. So they are asking (would be) users. Themselves! That is very different than creating a system for oil exploration from an office building in Europe or the US. The experts who understand the (geo)physics and such are in the building. The users may be in a ship. So there are diverse sources of expertise that need to be brought to bear. The key is that the architect and others on the design team are interpreting and imagineering the concept and design based on many sources. Users being one. Their own ingenuity being another.

As point-counterpoint conversations go, I was thinking, reading around the Nokia saga yesterday, that it might be used to argue against product platforms and product proliferation, when indeed the company has led the market on revenue and volume -- just not in smartphones. I gather the critical issue was not the platforms and variation, but bureaucracy and local (divisional) vested interests that led to not simultaneously moving aggressively enough to cannibalize it's own product base with an exciting smartphone and extended ecosystem creating/supporting relationship platform. Sure, these are related issues. But the recent travails only point to the need to ... bugles please ...  read my The Art of Change: Fractal and Emergent paper. Just kidding. Though it is relevant and great and all that. Maybe. Well, you decide if it adds anything to Clayton Christensen's Innovator's Dilemma. I think it does. Maybe. Oh, you decide. ;-) 

3/5/11: A Co-creation Primer, Stefan Stern, HBR: The Conversation, February 28, 2011

2/25/11 Note to self

I watched half of this before going to the peace play at Ryan's school (for which Ryan created and ran the sound effects): Brownfield Software - Industrial Waste or Business Fertilizer?, presented by Josh Graham, Feb 25, 2011. I'll try to get back to it tomorrow...

2/25/11 Design Beyond

(After the play) I read Richard Gabriel's "Design Beyond Human Abilities" essay from 2007. As he hoped, it is a very provocative essay, and I do very much like that in an essay. It doesn't leave one thinking the world is all solved and done, but rather opens up questions, posits thought-provoking ideas and brings fresh concepts and analogies into play

I'll be using the "canalization" word as it well describes what I have been using many more words to attempt to articulate! When I explain why the waterfall trap is "being wrong righter" and agile can be prone to "being wrong faster," I can now just say: these approaches canalize too early. See how quick that was? Well, you need to know what canalize is; if not, read the second to last paragraph on pg. 31.  Yeah, we're still going to canalize. It's actually important if we're going to bring experience, analogy, and experiment into focus to produce something in competitive timeframes. So we do some concept design upfront, to explore ...um... diverse (figurative) "canal choices" just enough to know which we're hot to invest our passions in, not to mention our businesses resources and potentially one shot at success in. Oh, now you want to duke it out, putting on the "iterative and incremental" boxing gloves in defense of agile? Well, this is the point of canalizing -- once we head in a direction, it becomes self-reinforcing. Expectations get shaped around what we have done so far. Feedback quickly starts to focus on what we did put out, and what to add to it. Systems shape the world around them. So we get canalled into small delta adjustments on the main flow.

Oops. Well, it's a nice idea that having just that perfect word would save more words...

As much as the essay excites dust off some ideas that want their moment to shine, it's late and tomorrow's set to be yet another busy, over-committed day.    
 

The Mercedes Benz left brain right brain ad series (code - painting numbers - music chess/structural design - free spirit/passion/fun) sure is stunning! You don't need to be reminded about my Making It Visual presentation (it's pretty naked, in the Garr Reynolds sense, of course), but what I intended to say is here. I noted:

The right brain/left brain allusions are not intended to be taken as unquestioned and unquestionable fact but rather as a metaphor. This is a research frontier that is interesting and the intended take-away is that we need to allow that we use our detail-oriented, pragmatic, logical "left brain" functions much of the time. And while that "left brain" self is a bit suspicious of the "right brain" self (like it is wearing a tie-dyed t-shirt that is an adopted vestige of the 60's), there are times when we need to be creative, think big-picture and holistically, and be comfortable with ambiguity and uncertainty. Anyway, this picture helps remind us that our understanding of the brain has come a long way, and has a long way to go. And that does nothing to undermine the point--our education system and our reward system helps to shape our experience, strengths and self concept, and we have to take courage and invest some of our cycles in the set of "functions" that have been associated (correctly, or not) with the "right brain." Walt Disney recognized this, and purportedly created separate physical spaces to play out the "dreamer," the "realist" and the "critic"--separating in space and time the "right" brain functions from the "left," to ensure that the right brain was not dominated into too early submission to practicality and logic. And, Disney, as Randy Pausch taught us, is a software engineer's hero!

-- moi, PICTURE IT: The Art of Drawing People In, 6/2009

See I used the "holistic" word. You knew you shouldn't be reading here. Now you're going to have some of that ucky right brain stuff stuck on you too.

2/26/11 Persuasion and Other Arts...

Jim "Cope" Coplien's initial few "agile career" blog posts have, by virtue of being piped to IEEE (Software) members, been exposing a broad audience to the "whole person" and "art in engineering" conversation. It's a tough conversation to have, so hats off to him for going there. But. Wink. You knew that was coming. But nothing. Ha! AND I think we need to be careful to include in the conversation observations in the vein of a Feynman or draw on the likes of a da Vinci who are as much engineers' heroes as artists'. Or to do something like this:

"Smalltalk development enticed one to "go native", like Gauguin's Tahiti." -- Brian Foote, Refactoring's Original Sin: Part I

-- complete with the image, to demonstrate his point, thereby illustrating my point that art informs the views and enriches the illustrations of scientists.

That said, the core disciplines of software engineering and computer science are exciting for the challenge and the reward of solving puzzles that demand ingenuity and, for those who hold themselves to a high standard, keen aesthetic sensibility. And so we find, in the work of the talented, beauty in software -- in the code, though Gourse makes even commits look lovely. Beauty is, after all, something we individually perceive and where we find it, our mind-spirit inclines to it in awed appreciation. It appeals to our aesthetic sense but there is also a component of admiration for the mastery whether it be a work of creation or Creation (use your preferred interpretation for Creation, whether evolution, or Evolution with a Guiding Hand, or Creation or...).    

Tonight we went to an IU Music senior's percussion recital (marimba mostly, but also a bembe drum and vocal piece, and culminating with a Joplin ensemble arranged for marimba and xylophone by Ingrid Cheung. Ingrid impressed us with her phenomenal performance!) Anyway, as I was listening to the music and see-feeling what it conveyed to me (the Northern Lights piece for example). The thought struck me that what we create has different dimensions and it is in all that it brings together for us that we find its meaning. When we write software, or music, or poetry, we aren't thinking 'oh, we are creating art," we are just intent on expressing what propels us. Our fine-tuned aesthetic sense is working in the background. The key, though, is developing that sense. And we do it by mastering our medium. Yes. But also by developing our sense of what is meaningful and to be valued. This has to do with our sense of right and wrong, but also with our sense of what is good in and for the community we care about. So we develop our values and our aesthetic sensibility. And our values thread, or are implicit in, the meaning we create in essential form in our work... (hey, between the recital and now, I'm winging this... two later than the usual late nights in a row... for all I know this is absolute nonsense but it tumbles out through my miscreant fingers that should by rights be getting some sleep...)  the sense that I am trying to articulate is that yes, we can build something meaningful or useful, but our expression can create meaning for our community. For example, that we can demonstrably create code we recognize as beautiful, gives a "software craftsman" a sense of greater aspirational purpose than writing just sufficient utilitarian code. What we mean by beautiful has a lot to do with the context and the beholder.

So it was interesting to return from that recital, to stumble by that Bliss-following Serendipity-blessed path on this:       

"My starting point is always a feeling of partisanship, a sense of injustice. When I sit down to write a book, I do not say to myself, ‘I am going to produce a work of art’. I write it because there is some lie that I want to expose, some fact to which I want to draw attention, and my initial concern is to get a hearing. But I could not do the work of writing a book, or even a long magazine article, if it were not also an aesthetic experience."  -- George Orwell, Why I Write

 

Late...let me just say what triggered this exploration in the witching hours --  an article in The Economist that ...  Well, I thought this was worth drawing out, at least for a smile:

"Studying the arts can also help companies learn how to manage bright people. Rob Goffee and Gareth Jones of the London Business School point out that today’s most productive companies are dominated by what they call “clevers”, who are the devil to manage. They hate being told what to do by managers, whom they regard as dullards. They refuse to submit to performance reviews. In short, they are prima donnas. The arts world has centuries of experience in managing such difficult people. Publishers coax books out of tardy authors. Directors persuade actresses to lock lips with actors they hate. Their tips might be worth hearing."

-- The art of management: Business has much to learn from the arts, The Economist, Feb 17th 2011

The real value in the article (for me), was the pointer to George Orwell's Why I Write essay! It is one of those pieces of writing that jiggles one's mental models into new configurations. I love that!  

"All writers are vain, selfish, and lazy, and at the very bottom of their motives there lies a mystery. Writing a book is a horrible, exhausting struggle, like a long bout of some painful illness. One would never undertake such a thing if one were not driven on by some demon whom one can neither resist nor understand. For all one knows that demon is simply the same instinct that makes a baby squall for attention."  -- George Orwell, Why I Write


"To raise new questions, new possibilities, to regard old problems from a new angle requires a creative imagination and marks the real advances in science." -- Albert Einstein

2/27/11... the month is drawing quickly to a close... with so much to do. 

2/28/11 Refactoring continued

Cool, Brian followed up with Refactoring's Original Sin: Part II

"Lehman and Belady had observed that while design was an entropy decreasing process, maintenance was an entropy increasing process, that inevitable eroded structure." -- Brian Foote,  Refactoring's Original Sin: Part II

2/28/11 Where's the Design Thinking?

I read Bob Martin's "The Land that Scrum Forgot" article from December 2010 (via Brian Foote's post on Double-Entry Accounting). This is an excerpt:

"One of the reasons for this hyper-productivity is the smallness of the code base. Small code bases are easy to manage. Changes are easy to make; and new features are easy to add.

But the code is growing fast; and when a code base gets large, it can be very difficult to maintain. Programmers can be significantly slowed down by bad code. Teams can be reduced to near immobility by the sheer weight of a badly written system If care is not taken soon, the hyper-productive scrum team will succumb to the disease that kills so many software projects. They will have made a mess.

...

The reason scrum teams make messes is because they have been empowered and incented to make one.  And a Scrum team can make a mess really, really fast!  A Scrum team is hyper-productive at making messes.  Before you know it the mess will be “so big and so deep and so tall, you can not clean it up. There is no way at all.”

And when that happens, productivity declines.  Morale goes down.  Customers and managers get angry.  Life is bad."

-- Robert C. Martin, "The Land that Scrum Forgot", 12/14/10

Highlighting the issues and the recommendations Uncle Bob makes in this essay are important. Lots of good advice and pointers to tools. 

Yet... no mention of architecture and design as intentional and reflective activity? Improving low level design through Refactoring and TDD is a big deal. But there are other design tools too. The system grows and we think we can hold it all in our heads and manipulate and reason about an increasingly not just big, but complex (many interacting parts, explosion of state space, (ostensibly) vast degrees of freedom and malleability, etc.) system. Why? I mean what are we gaining encouraging (or not discouraging) an anti-design mindset??  This isn't (well, shouldn't be) a warring among factions. This has to do with software people we care about getting burned on projects that get locked in hairballs.

Why do we spurn intentional, explicit design? Patterns say that knowledge we have garnered in our field applies to future systems. And yet we somehow don't want to say that we can apply knowledge we have built in ourselves and our field to the design of new systems or the improvement of extant ones? In the 90's there were projects that got mired in analysis paralysis from zealously overdoing modeling. We labeled the disease BDUF, giving antibodies more potency with a named thing to attack. Out with modeling, the Agile Manifesto implied, at least to many in our field.

Enter the last decade. The Age of Assurgent Agile. And again... bitten by zeal. There've been enough projects mired in code rot from glomming code together at high (at first) project velocity to trigger the Craftsmanship Manifesto. And a list of recommendations to measure and test our way to quality... yes, if we do this we will tend to write cleaner code, and we will learn how to. But that is worth saying! Work intentionally. And incent that intentionality by making it visible through measures and tests when it is being compromised by pressure-cooker management.  

We practice extremes, get aberrant results, and recoil!  But the tough lesson should be that extreme all-out-to-the-exclusion-of-other-good-practice is where the issue lies. It is simply not pragmatic. Pragmatic takes what helps, in the degree of moderation that is helpful.   

If we want to resist entropy, architecture needs to be a front-and-center concern not just in a handful of early sketches to launch teams, but through the creation and evolution of the system. We act intentionally, and we reflect on what intention and accident brings about, apply reason and experience and evolve the architecture. So we get this blend of intentional and emergent, experimental and reflective, reason and accident, etc.

Yes we don't know everything upfront and we'll learn as we progress. So? Does that really mean we should disregard both experience and reasoning with other tools than code to aid our thinking? Don't we instead want to figure out as cheaply and quickly as we can where our make-or-break uncertainties lie? Does experience and expertise count for anything in our field? And if it does, doesn't that mean we should make key enabling decisions as early as possible, creating the space within which we can productively move forward? Yeah, sometimes we'll be wrong, but we apply a discipline of discovery so that we find out as early as anyone reasonably could!

3/1/11: This is not about all or nothing. It is not about devaluing the design that happens in the medium of code (and tests). It is about bringing our various resources to bear -- system design thinking, expertise, modeling, patterns, experiment, incremental and iterative architectural designing/testing/improving and incremental and iterative designing/coding/testing/improving. The software we create is an important enabler for its users and the code we write impacts the quality of life of those who evolve it. From both points of view, we need to take a multi-faceted approach to creating great systems. These grow ever more complex as we expect more and more from the enablement our compute-rich systems afford. We have to bring more intellectual resources to bear so that we can husband that complexity!  This includes working explicitly at the system design level, on design of key mechanisms and on code. Early, for example, we need to allow more expansive search patterns before we converge into a "canal" that pulls us along a course that is in important ways predicated by the choices we've made.

This post provides an interesting anecdotal counter-point, demonstrating that the even though our code hygienists may not intend to subvert design, their language causes developers to think explicit design unwarranted (thinking that between tests and our refactoring tool of choice, design will emerge): Object oriented abstractions. I came across that post via Tim Ottinger who tweeted:  

Tim Ottinger tweet on 3/1/11

Yes, if the gurus of our field don't talk about design, developers will continue to discover the need for design the hard way. This may be one of those unintended consequences things, where focus on a really important problem isn't meant to imply rejection of other important practices. But our communication is the effect we have. Yeah, the message receiver has a responsibility too. And there's abdication of responsibility versus delegation, and people who follow the thought leadership of gurus should not abdicate the responsibility to educate themselves (on the gurus earlier work, even). But society would be awfully cumbersome if we couldn't delegate responsibility and it takes time and experience to find the line between abdication and delegation. And who can develop that experience without delegating some of the time?

We need to remember that even though many of us went through the visual modeling wave and the patterns wave and so forth, developers "coming of age" after each of these waves did their hype burn-out thing, need a new round of enthusiasm and education on practices we might consider old news.

Hey, on the other hand, I suppose we could start a podcast series called "Software Improv"... ;-)  

Image: Tim Ottinger tweet on 3/1/11

2/28/11 To Engineer or Not to Engineer -- To Quibble is Human

Another thought provoking post from Thomas Jay's alter-ego. Personally, I like to think my background is in software engineering, because I align with the engineering ethos. For example, these words resonate with how I see myself and our field:

...day-to-day engineering work is energized by a unique belief system which forms an enduring and coherent engineering ethos. It proposes that the engineers' view of the word is at once formative, utilitarian and reductionist. Good engineering practice comes from the productive synergy of these elements. ... These lead to separate but complementary aspects of an engineering ethos, namely seeing the world as essentially problematic, as a commercial challenge and as an opportunity for continuous, useful, material development. It is argued that, together, these three outlooks empower the practice of engineering.

-- JE Holt, On the nature of Mechanical Engineering Work - An Engineering Ethos

Software development doesn't own iterative and incremental. And concurrent engineering didn't even start in software, so far as I know. At least, we were borrowing ideas from concurrent engineering and leveraging them into software development practices in the 90's. I do rather suspect, given what I have observed in practice, that other engineering disciplines do a good sight better job using simulation to test design ideas than we do, for example. We just have to open up our frame to allow that there are various ways to do design in any of the engineering disciplines. At the same time, other engineering disciplines are learning from Evo and Agile in software. And while it is true that the dominant practice of doing what design we do in the medium of code has produced much of the software we have today, we have also fessed up to the need in our field to do better (witness the wording in the Craftsmanship Manifesto). Yes, in part it entails sharing and learning from each other in craft-like guilds. And in part it means creating more shared ground under our feet, drawing out knowledge that would otherwise remain tacit and making it sharable. Architects do this explicitly in the architecture when the rationale explains the thinking behind decisions, and in mentoring their team(s). It is also what research does. Applied engineering research that learns from what is practiced. And frontier-pushing scientific research that advances practice.     

Software engineering is going to be different than mechanical engineering. But so is chemical engineering! I think we'd do well to say "if we are an engineering discipline, what does that mean?" What do we need to do better, so we grow up to be "enjuneers."  (I was interested to find, chatting with IU faculty, that university politics have muddied the waters. As I understand it, because Purdue owns engineering, the Computer Science department at IU Bloomington is restricted from including any classes that are considered the purview of engineering/owned by Purdue. Go figure.)

That said, we get way too hung up on words. What we do is what counts. Yes, words have the power to shape what we do, but they also have the power to trap us in a rat-hole of mutual misunderstanding if we get pedantically brittle and unyielding. I incline to Feynman's pragmatism here:

'We can't define anything precisely. If we attempt to, we get into that paralysis of thought that comes to philosophers… one saying to the other: "you don't know what you are talking about!". The second one says: "what do you mean by talking? What do you mean by you? What do you mean by know?"'

-- Richard Feynman, The Feynman Lectures, Vol. 1.  

and

You can know the name of a bird in all the languages of the world, but when you're finished, you'll know absolutely nothing whatever about the bird... So let's look at the bird and see what it's doing -- that's what counts. I learned very early the difference between knowing the name of something and knowing something.

-- Richard Feynman, "What is Science?", presented at the fifteenth annual meeting of the National Science Teachers Association, in New York City (1966) published in The Physics Teacher Vol. 7, issue 6 (1969)

Anyway, learning from other fields, and they from ours, is healthy. Our field-specific learning is crucial, of course. And I think it would be helpful to remind ourselves that software development is often part of a larger context of product and system (supporting, for example, financial services, the "products of insurance companies or banks) development. So when we draw parallels with other engineering disciplines, and they with ours, we need to use that frame of reference.

In particular, we're talking about innovation and creating competitive differentiation, about discovery and problem solving. Then we need to ask what the dominant forces are. Software development for the space shuttle is going to be different than software development for an iPhone app. A manufactured device that has manufacturing molds that costs millions of dollars to make, is going to have different constraints and forces factoring in the design process than software that not only be changed throughout development, but can generally even be changed once the system is in use (although the cost of doing so varies across different contexts). That said, once you think in terms of creating some 40 product variations off a common code base more quickly and more cheaply than competitors, you're also into a different constraint set for software. And so it goes. Context factors. And because context factors, embedded software has a larger lifecycle to sync to.

One could throw lots of arrows at large scale projects like Ford's "Neverest" and say they should have done the "one block pedestrian mall" (show value quickly and early) to get suppliers begging for more. But it is still a challenge co-ordinating many teams of teams to tackle anything significantly ambitious.  And ambitious projects do succeed. We just hear about those that fail big.  And while I'm there. I'll just say that for anything in development, Hofstadter's Law is at play, so while the deadlines are important forcing functions, we should ultimately measure success in market terms, for schedules are at best an educated guess.

Personally, I think our field is interesting and has so many exciting challenges that we need to learn with huge humility and eagerness, with a great appetite for analogy (rather than treating analogy as a war of words that raises our defense mechanisms), and with a willingness to experiment and learn, and become more self-conscious about moving the learning from tacit to explicit knowledge. We've made huge strides with patterns and practices. We're not done.    

3/8/11: IEEE takes software engineering seriously:

2/28/11 Quiet Backwaters Place

Fortunately tomorrow we flip to a fresh journal page, and all references here will be buried in an archived wall of words. Bring on March!  

2/28/11 Visualization

This paper is not directly about architecture visualization, but about the issue of representing the architecture concepts in the code, which relates to visualization (for example, so we can "extract" the architecture):

2/28/11 The Passing of Another Great

 

I also write at:

- Resources for Software Architects

- Trace In the Sand Blog

 

Papers:

- Strategy, Architecture and Agility: The Art of Change: Fractal and Emergent, 2010

- Innovation and Agile Architecting:
Getting Past ‘But’: Finding Opportunity and Making It Happen, 2008

Visualization

- Links to tools and other resources

Misc. me:

- Other Interests

- Introducing Archman

 

Feedback: I can be reached at . I welcome input, discussion and feedback on any of the topics in this Trace in The Sand Journal, my blog, and the Resources for Architects website, or, for that matter, anything relevant to architects, architecting and architecture! Bring value, and I commit to using what you teach me, to convey it as best I can, help your lessons reach as far as I can spread them. I try to do this ethically, giving you credit (quoting you directly if you permit that) whenever I can, but protecting confidentiality as a first priority. Frankly, the comment feature on my blog was not much used, but if you want to participate with public comments, by all means encourage me to blog more. For those who follow and who want to interact, personal email has worked well, or well enough. But I'm open to directing more of my attention to my blog, should that be worthwhile.

Restrictions on Use: All original material (writing, photos, sketches) created by Ruth Malan on this page is copyrighted by Ruth Malan. All sketches by Sara B. are used with her permission (I paid for the use). All other material is clearly quoted and ascribed to its source. If you wish to quote or paraphrase fragments of material copyrighted by Ruth Malan in another publication or web site, please properly acknowledge Ruth Malan as the source, with appropriate reference to this web page. If you wish to republish any of Ruth Malan's or Bredemeyer Consulting's work, in any medium, you must get written permission from the lead author. Also, any commercial use must be authorized in writing by Ruth Malan or Bredemeyer Consulting. Thank you.

Copyright © 2011 by Ruth Malan
URL: http://www.ruthmalan.com
Page Created: January1, 2011
Last Modified: January 02, 2012