I see Doug Newdick illustrated what Conceptual Architecture is good for -- a Conceptual Desktop Architecture. Great post Doug! And (serendipitously) well timed!

Aside. I like Doug's use of hand-sketching on his diagrams. They are very useful illustrations that really add to his text. And the hand-drawn conveys the human touch so eloquently.

Later:  Peter, thank you for prompting Doug Newdick to articulate his "why" for conceptual architecture! :-) Nicely done, Doug!

I believe Doug is right about Conceptual Architecture being important. And right that it is a neglected view. But not in our book. Well, our book is under substantial (complete!) revision. Which is why, among other things, I'm trying to get the framing (more) right -- or at least as right as it can be given the current set of understandings we (the field) have. So thanks for the carrying the conversation along -- even though Doug wasn't aware of my piece of the conversation/this Trace entry [which I have trimmed down now that it served its purpose, after its own fashion].  

 

I liked this (very short) animated video: The Ride - by King & Country. These Rube Goldberg-styled "machines" so make me think of visualization of executing software, and this one is even more delightfully apt as it is a fantasy world with allusions to the real world -- a construction of the (analogical) mind, as software is.

And the visualization (right), from the video, of a system as interacting mechanisms is wonderful!

Isn't that just what our systems would look like, if we could take the skin off?... :-) Well, as I see it, it would have various defense shields. But our systems have to survive in a hostile world.

And so it goes.

Now you're convinced I've lost my marbles... ;-)

Image source: The Ride - by King & Country

10/6/11 EA KPIs

This appears in KPIs for Enterprise Architecture:

# Frequency of updates to the enterprise architecture

Now, would frequent updates be an indicator of goodness or badness?? Good -- responsive to emergent need. Bad -- was way off base to begin with... but good if responsive enough to fix it... And so it goes.

Well, indicators are just that -- signals to look deeper. Just so long as management understands that.

10/6/11 Why We Sketch

Via Peter Bakker:

• Why We Sketch, Jared M. Spool, Sep 22, 2010

"Up until now, they were talking about WHAT they were trying to do. Now, they could talk about HOW they would do it.

The WHAT was now on the whiteboard—and in everybody's head. For the first time, it was the same WHAT everywhere."

-- Jared M. Spool, Why We Sketch, Sep 22, 2010

10/6/11 Decisions of the Moment

Not all decisions are equal (in import, scope of impact and consequence). The architect needs to be able to assess (and given the authority to decide) which are architecturally significant, and when to make* those that are. Some need to be made early, just to get ground under the feet to move forward on.

"a long and rapid succession of suboptimal design decisions taken partly in the dark."

-- Philippe Kruchten, "The Architects -- The Software Architecture Team," Proceedings of the First Working IFIP Conference on Software Architecture (WICSA1). Kluwer Academic Publishing 1999

* collaboratively, of course, but with the authority to make a decision if the collaborative/consensus process stalls.

10/6/11 Great Talk!

Michael Feathers "Code Blindness" talk is wonderful, and he really positions software visualization well!

Michael Feathers: to get past code blindness:

- more monitoring of applications -- find indicators of problems in code bases

- boiled frog syndrome -- those closest to team are not able to tell where the problems lie

- planning for replacement

Michael Feathers: metrics are dangerous when you lose context, or when they become goals (in of themselves)

 

10/7/11 Opportunities to Influence

10/7/11 Fall

The Fall Ballet at IU tonight was wonderful! And our world is decked in resplendent color.

A good note to close on...

 

Tim O'Reilly held Google's feet to the fire in his "What Android can learn from Steve Jobs" keynote address at Android Open -- in the most gracious way, of course.  His address was a mix of what Google is doing well -- where it expresses and aligns with its soul -- and a call to do more of that. It was a courageous (ok, Tim can afford to be more courageous than most, but still he didn't try to protect powerful relationships by pulling his punches) and inspiring keynote and I'm glad I was able to catch it on livestream (even though it puts me seriously behind on today's commitments!). The slides are here, but I recommend the video (scroll down to get to it) -- along with the slides.

The address is more pitched at Google than the (rest of the) Android community, but we can see Tim really set out to speak for the community, to call Google to be its best self, to be true to its stated, projected image -- to do no evil, to not be closely controlling and so close off others from leadership roles in the Android ecosystem.

It is a wise talk, full of strategic savvy, and I highly recommend it to architects wondering what strategy means to technologists. :-) 

By extensively quoting the "founding fathers" of Google, Tim not only made his intended points, but built the image of the evolving "creation story" of Google, strengthening his "be true to the self you project" call. We do, after all, want to be known for the best we see and value in ourselves. As Tim points out (quoting Kurt Vonnegut's "You are what you pretend to be, so be careful what you pretend"), by stating how we want to be seen, we call upon ourselves to live the image we project. If we do not strive to live up to that projection, the world calls us on the disjunction, and we are seen as inauthentic and lose trust.

This, from a slide in Tim's talk, is an inspiring -- and daunting (will we fix the environmental mess, or make it worse) -- way to position what we're about:

The "hardship for us all" is a bit jarring coming from Sergey Brin, but he does make a good point all the same!

 

Showing how bright ideas can be really simple: water bottle lighting.

And dim ones can backfire: Netflix VP: Why We Moved "Too Fast," And Why "We Were Wrong" On Qwikster, Austin Carr, 10/10/11

At least they're saying: "We were wrong."

Ok, HP board -- your turn!

What happened at Netflix and HP sure demonstrates the power of social media.

10/10/11 Serendipity Serves

I relate this (my italics):

More than a week after Stalin’s death, Eisenhower was talking with speechwriter Emmet Hughes about the address. “Look, I am tired—and I think everyone is tired—of just plain indictments of the Soviet regime,” Ike said. “I think it would be wrong—in fact, asinine—for me to get up before the world now to make another one of those indictments. Instead, just one thing matters. What have we got to offer the world?” 

-- The Origins of That Eisenhower 'Every Gun That Is Made...', Robert Schlesinger, September 30, 2011 (via Tim O'Reilly)

to Jobs' key point in a presentation to Apple employees in 1997 (via Tom Graves):

"To me, marketing is about values. This is a very complicated world, it's a very noisy world. And we're not going to get the chance to get people to remember much about us. No company is. So we have to be really clear on what we want them to know about us."

— Steve Jobs to Apple employees, 1997

Me-too products (simply copying others' feature sets) lead to more complexity with no distinctive meaning and value, forcing a battle on price leading to ever more tightening of cost reduction screws.

What is common to those two Eisenhower and Jobs "great speeches", is the call to find and be true to distinguishing value.

Aside: I like the image of the "bite" out of the Apple apple that is Steve Jobs' profile, and the way the apple logo itself suddenly now seems to be a candle! Who did that? It's really impressive!

 

Looking again at modularity, I discovered by a neat serendipity that Bill Shackleton tweeted a set of links to very useful papers on modularity last night! Timed that well, he did! :-)

So via Bill:

• Managing in an Age of Modularity, Carliss Baldwin and Kim Clark, HBR, 1997
• Papers by Carliss Baldwin
• Modularity, Architecture and the Role of Knowledge, Richard Tee, 2011
• Valuating Modular Architectures for Cross-Company Electronic Interaction, Schmid et al, 2009
• Industry Structure and Modular Product Architectures: An interpretation of the bicycle industry, Juliana Mikkola, 2002

I hadn't read the last of those, and my Modularity and what we can learn from Trek blog post was independently derived, but serves as a complementary companion, perhaps.

Now I need to read:

• Where do transactions come from? Modularity, transactions, and the boundaries of firms, Carliss Baldwin, Industrial and Corporate Change, 2007

for its implications as we move to less hierarchically composed organizations. The section on modularity theory is a wonderful trace of (some of) the history. 

My interest in modularity is from a software and system perspective, but I got pulled off course for a spell by Carliss Baldwin's article which intrigued me because we think that organizations will move in a direction that is more networked and "podular" with more fuzzy boundaries which raises interesting questions about transaction costs. Peter Bakker pointed to the wikipedia entry on community structure which is interesting.

10/18/11: Modularity in Technology, Organization, and Society, Richard N. Langlois, Economics Working Papers, 1999
 

It is interesting that we have moved from Douglas Engelbart's conception of augmented human intellect more to human-computer symbiosis (with roots in Licklider's work, but a referent, for example, in Tim OReilly's articulation of a network-mediated global mind). That is, implicitly and I think unselfconsciously, we have shifted from computing as enhancement to computing as peer. The next step in the trajectory -- human-augmented computing?

In important ways, we're already there. For example, in software visualization, we more sensibly depict system structure derived from dependency and semantic analyses (algorithms) when we factor in the (human) understanding of the team. That is, we're moving into the sphere where our (so-far uniquely) human proclivity for 'hunches, cut-and-try, intangibles, and the human "feel for a situation"' (Douglas Engelbart) is needed to augment the powerfully "rational cogitations" of compute intelligence.

Of course, all this is in service of humanity (environmental catastrophes aside). For a while yet. At least. ;-)

10/12/11 Agile Architecting

Our What it takes to be great paper played a cornerstone role in our field, building recognition that architects are not uni-dimensional technologists. I think the Getting Past ‘But’: Finding Opportunity and Making It Happen paper was likewise a scene-setter, but more, it is one of those inspire and enable pieces. I would write it a lot differently today. But that doesn't make it irrelevant or not worthwhile.

As for Fractal and Emergent... :-) Well, it pairs well with A Kodak Moment to Reconsider the Value of IT  (Robert Plant, October 12, 2011) and, actually, Steve Yegge's Google Platforms Rant. Not to mention Greg Satell's A Radical Shift Toward Design (October 2, 2011).

10/12/11 Alistair Cockburn

I enjoyed Alistair Cockburn's Effective Software Development presentation (although I had to forward through the certification bits, and such; not enough time in a day for every distraction... oh yes, and work)! I wonder if Alistair adopted the accent intentionally, or if he just has a talent for absorbing context?

10/12/11 Get It While You Can!

Read this right now (you'll thank me!): Steve Yegge's Google Platforms Rant

10/12/11 Some Neat Visualizations

• Growth of Walmart and Sam's Club
• Up and Down the Ladder of Abstraction

10/12/11 Sound Familiar?

'“architecture is experienced habitually, in a state of distraction.” Architects must then weave ways to flow people and resources through built environments' -- Danzico, Enforced Listening Moments, Dec 1, 2009

Isn't this what your system needs: Chopin's for Dummies, Jeremy Denk, Nov 30, 2009? Well, of course, not exactly that, but that kind of enthusiastic and acute-but-sensitively informed telling of the meaning and import and intent of its structure and mechanisms?
 

Visual Bits from the Tweet Stream

Via Peter Bakker, among others:

• Thinking Maps
• Parson's Journal for Information Mapping (for example: Consumer Insight Maps: The Map as Story Platform in the Design Process)
• Adobe Museum of InfoVis

Some other sites were mentioned, but they are already on my list: Visualization in Other Fields.

Interesting piece of visual art history: 100,000-Year-Old Art Studio Discovered, Cynthia Graber, Scientific American, October 13, 2011 (via Maria Popova/@brainpicker)
 

So Sorry to Hear That!

Dennis Ritchie died on October 8. It makes news today? Now that was a life that made a difference! Funny how we don't think of it that way, until it's in the rear view mirror. Well, it's humbling and enriching to think of what Dennis Ritchie gave us. Unix and C. And all that stood on the shoulders thereof.

10/14/11: Rob Pike's reflection is worth reading.

Of note: he doesn't take away from Steve Jobs to give to Dennis Ritchie. This is not a competition among dead heroes for our worship! This is our huge shout (and sad sigh) of thanks, and an expression of wonder at having lived when these men lived and made a difference -- changed the world, even!

10/17/11:

• The C Family of Languages: Interview with Dennis Ritchie, Bjarne Stroustrup, and James Gosling, Java Report, July 2000
• Dennis Ritchie, Herb Sutter, 2011-10-12
   

Connections

Mortality sucks. But it reminds us to care for and appreciate one another because we blaze for such a short time. We have this chance -- this short lived opportunity -- to feel the presence of others in our lives. To connect through the rare act of seeing -- of putting aside the huge mirror of self that prevents us from seeing -- into the mind and heart of another. And by seeing, by putting our great big oofish self aside, we are enriched, in our view, our empathy, and the material we have to draw on to make fresh connections, lovely in their unique composite form -- more lovely because they drew from beyond the limits of our self.

We can choose how we see ideas and the people who associate themselves closely with their "thought children." We can see them as threats to our dominion, or we can see them as they are, especially as they are in their best light. I suppose we need warriors -- not convinced, mind*. But I do so much more lean to those who are compassionate, kind and generous. They make the world better in our experience of it. 

Reading

"What unites the CIRTL Network universities is a commitment to developing a national STEM faculty better prepared to teach, through three core ideas: teaching-as-research, learning communities, and learning-through-diversity," -- Robert Mathieu, ACM Newsgram, 10/14/11

I was struck by that last: learning-through-diversity. I realized that I have an opportunity I wasn't valuing highly enough -- being in a distinct minority, everyone I work with is very different from me. That's a learning-through-diversity opportunity of huge proportion! Right? I get more opportunities than you do to work in contexts where styles and viewpoints are very different than my own. Rats! I should be so much better at this than I am. All that opportunity 'n all.

* Given that there are warriors, we need warriors, but what if we were free of warriors?
 

SATURN 2010

Call for submissions for the SEI Architecture Technology User Network (SATURN) 2012 Conference. The SATURN 2012 Conference will be held in collaboration with IEEE Software magazine and will take place May 7-11, 2012 in St. Petersburg, Florida.

I enjoyed doing a tutorial at SATURN in 2010, but unfortunately the conference overlapped with Ryan's graduation (the culmination for most in his class of 9 years at the Montessori School, so a big deal -- with speeches!) so I missed the chance to sit in on other presentations and tutorials. Linda Rising, Rod Nord and George Fairbanks sat in on mine. Rod Nord is beyond compare -- wise yet child-open and joyful at discovery. He enriches experience, and it was a privilege! I've since watched Linda Rising on youtube, and she's the Ellen Degeneres of software, or something like that! I mean, she's an engaging and dramatic speaker.

Yeah -- Tell Meg!

\

And HP could make it happen! Turn them engineers loose on defining the future! Tell Meg Whitman I said so. That'll have some influence.

;-)

I mean, I love Apple and Asia and all, but the future needs options.

There's so much opportunity! To something like Watson or Siri, add

• Life-like cells are made of metal, Katharine Sanderson, 14 September 2011
• A New Twist on Artificial Muscles, Prachi Patel, October 14, 2011

Computing has so far to go, even when we only take into account what we already know! Just think -- the "not your father's PC" of the future will not just sit there on your desktop, mute and inert! Between here and there, there's a whole lot of innovation to conceive, realize and popularize!

Or going the other direction (from more human-like computers to more computer-like humans), imagine adding this to something like this! It doesn't have to be like this. Makes Kinect look passé doesn't it?!

I know that's a far cry from the cut-throat business HP's computing business is in today. But competition is only cut-throat if you can't imagine -- and execute on -- being compelling!

Ryan told me he came across this (I'm paraphrasing) on the i-way yesterday: "With Lion, Apple reveals that it has given up on dragging us into the future, and has left without us."

But hey, it would be so much fun to make this movie today -- you know, a movie set in 2036, or thereabouts. The backstory is here: The Making of Knowledge Navigator, Hugh Dubberly, Mar 30, 2007. And here's a downer (not).  :-) In that light though: Paul Allen: The Singularity Isn't Near. ;-) I mean, consider this: Robot Biologist Solves Complex Problem from Scratch, October 14, 2011 (via BillShackleton).

Two Kinds of Critics

"Any time you do something big, that’s disruptive — Kindle, AWS — there will be critics. And there will be at least two kinds of critics. There will be well-meaning critics who genuinely misunderstand what you are doing or genuinely have a different opinion. And there will be the self-interested critics that have a vested interest in not liking what you are doing and they will have reason to misunderstand. And you have to be willing to ignore both types of critics. You listen to them, because you want to see, always testing, is it possible they are right?"

-- Jeff Bezos,  Amazon Shareholder Meeting, June 7, 2011

Read the whole transcript -- lots of lessons!

Follow Up Required

Note to self: need to follow up/verify this.

10/15/11: That is, I wanted to look up the PopSci reference -- here it is:

• What Is the Memory Capacity of the Human Brain? Paul Reber, April 19, 2010

and also remind myself to dig out Ralph Merkle's take -- here:

• How Many Bytes in Human Memory?, Ralph C. Merkle, October 1988.
   

Twitter Occupied Too?

Well, Ryan is finding this a good time to be singing Bob Dylan songs from the '60's. The youth of today care. That matters!
 

Connecting Impressions

Stuart Boardman's Monet Revisited post makes points along the lines of several I've made -- except he does so with eloquence and style (of the kind I think is iconically captured in the xkcd hat guy) and a unique slant lighting new insights! So, yeah, sure, I droll on about the value of sketchy (double entendre intended) and hand rendered in a very technology-glitzy and implicitly mechanically prescriptive world. And, of course, Stuart's wonderful post goes further too, to survey other innovations in terms of how we conceive and practice EA (and the very enterprises themselves). 

Because I think what Stuart was saying in Monet Revisited is complementary to, and enhances, enriches, expands, deepens, provides a different angle on, some of the points I've made, I'll quote myself to add to the conversation -- by which I mean, I'm not trying to say "I told you so" but rather, I'm trying to say this is an "and" world, where we brighten each other's conceptions by holding conversations (albeit asynchronously and using our blogs as avatars that speak for us). In that spirit then, this from my Trace on July 5, 2011:

This, from an earlier entry in my journal (2/21/11), prompted by a pointer (thanks Daniel) to the artist Constantin Brâncuşi:

"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) we could say it is 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 essential 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. :-)

Brâncuşi was, I gather, objecting to bundling his work into a class of art for which there is no evident relationship between what is real and the art; rather, he protested, his work captures the essence or the idea of the thing. It cleaves away the inessential and compresses the essential into a powerful expression of the essence of the reality. In other words, rather than convince me that his work is not abstract, Brâncuşi defined abstract for me, at least in so far as it applies to his work. For Brâncuşi was very much after identifying and capturing the essential identity and form (with its implications for function) of the thing he was sculpting. (See, for example, the evolution of his Bird in Space.) In discovering software abstractions, we can go from concrete instances to a generalization, eliminating detail from the concrete to find the more general, more abstract common form. But seeking the idea, the essence of the thing, supports more degrees of freedom in realizing concrete forms that retain the essence.   

I was pitching that at software architecture. But, about a dozen years ago, when our IT architect clients were urging us to help them figure out what to do in the Enterprise Architecture space, they made the point that the way we think about architecture of systems speaks, with a context shift of course, to other kinds of systems -- those that are more software-intensive and others that are software-complemented-wetware intensive (the wetware, in my use, being a reference back to that Merkle piece).

I alluded to Brancusi, and Stuart to Monet, to make the point that detail, inherent in realism, obfuscates. My points are shaded differently than Stuart's, so, as I said, they are complementary, and add up to a more rich view.  

What pops out freshly for me, from revisiting my thinking extended and freshly nuanced by Stuart's points, is that there is huge value in that "room for interpretation" that more abstract representation rather than less rigorously detailed specification leaves open. This also harks back to one of our earliest principles -- that of minimalism (see here and here). We want to fix in detail only what we need to, to focus on and enable strategic outcomes. For the most part, we want to simply set sufficient context so that we enable good, right things to happen.  Where "good" (in our good, right, successful sense) is technically sound, and "right" is from a stakeholder point of view -- meets stakeholder needs, goals, alleviates frustrations, delights them, makes their lives more the way they want them to be, creates and fills aspirations, provides meaning, and so forth. Which also relates to the Fractal and Emergent which probably bears a closer reading now... ??? ;-)

Talking through some related ideas, Dana said "That's why Jesus taught in parables."  In other words, stories play a similar role.

Key points I take from the interweaving conversations then:

• there is something powerful in creating aligning context, without going into tightly prescriptive detail, shaping an enabling space in which the team is free to be creative, to be innovative and draw on their expression and interpretation yet be aligned and in harmony and concert.
• there is something powerful in focusing on the essence of the expression, rather than all the myriad details of reality -- "reality" in our experience of it, is more vivid and better understood as a result of this "amplification by simplification" (quoting Grady Booch quoting Scott McCloud).

And some other stuff. (I thought of a 3rd point while off line... that "memory almost full" phenomenon or the impact of just 4 hours sleep last night???)

Well, I could pull out other pieces (of my long and arduous conversation with myself that is this Trace) that relate to this vein of conversation, but onward! New fields to plough!

Aside: Remember that the Less is More paper was written in 2002. I would write it differently now (so don't be too critical of dated wording), but it still is ahead of many people's thinking about architecture...

But quickly, just to pull these into my notes:

Above and below -- studies in networks of influence. Both abstract. (Dana took the photo below in Canada a few weeks ago.)

Yep, Dana's been traveling here there and every where -- just in the past two months he's been in Africa, Canada, variously in the US, The Netherlands, etc.

But... Dana needs to go back to South Africa -- we're about out of rusks.

10/17/11: Daniel, most valued and awesome scout that he is, pointed to this piece on Gertrude Stein which well fits this thread. You know, Gertrude Stein of The World is Round, and other things. ... I suppose I have either irreparably sunk or redeemed myself in your estimation by drawing on children's literature in the context of computing and enterprise architecture. Sunk...? Oops. Well, at least... I'm .... courageous. ;-) But The World Is Round has a poignant message in this world where the frenzy of social connection is ... um... deep and important post could be written... but... busy!
 

Drawing on the Human Side

Our Visual Architecting Process poster (below) has always been hand-drawn, reflecting our values around communicating organically and in high human-simpatico terms. Dana never turns the projector on most workshops, and I'll go days without turning it on. A few people hate it, being concerned we aren't "covering the material," but for the most part that responsive-to-the-moment works well -- for people who will give up the need to have some kind of paper control and trust the instructor to set context and create that learning crucible so that the architectural thinking lessons are drawn out and practiced. 

 

The Role of the Architect

Depicting some dimensions of the role:

 

Lead -- raising the ceiling for others

Strategize -- thinking about how to solve the puzzle

Architect -- drawing the big picture view

Politics -- relationships (involves, like, taking showers and communicating and stuff)

Politics -- shielding the team from organizational crud

Just a taste of some of the flavors of the role. Not exactly/entirely representative. But enough to cure most developers of architect-envy. ;-)
 

Uh. Actually, that's just a page from some sketchnotes I took back when. I have no idea what I was thinking at the time, so I came up with some words that seem to fit. Oh, yeah? Like you never do that?

;-)

Monty Python -Esque

Ryan was wondering who we have now, to fill the gap John Cleese left. I relayed some of Michael Feathers tweets of late. I was reminded of that, when I saw this:

It's really so much like this, isn't it?

I think Michael would take that as a compliment of the highest order. Certainly it is intended as such.

When I quoted "It's raining diligently?" the chortle was delicious. So (sur)real. It's that amplify thing taken to the kind of peak where exquisite and excruciating meet. Um. Um. No. I didn't mean that. Or... maybe I did.
 

Shallows or (dis)Connected Long Tail?

This brain-of-brains thing we've created with the internet has the potential to shift the state of humanity -- in good ways, sure. But also in bad. There are concerns that we and our interpersonal lives are becoming more shallow. We flit through zingy morsels of brain treats served up on the i-way, rather than reading books. We text and tweet rather than conversing and writing letters. We watch youtube on our computers and don't support live performing arts, pressing them to evolve away from their classical roots to be more electrifying. Our tastes shift to satisfying an addiction to the buzz of lots of little eurekas.

I think there's an alternative way to see what is happening, at least in part. Which is to say, for example, we communicate more frequently and across more channels, so if you look at any one channel, it will appear more "thin" but it's just a slice -- diced, moreover, into smaller chunks. But is the communication shallower or more rich, taken across all the parts and allowing, too, for emergence? Are we reading more shallowly, or are we following our interests more passionately, going deep but also leveraging the facility the i-way has given us to tie together sources that bring the everyman into the state of being a polymath or Renaissance man? Are we interacting less, or more with people with like interests, distributed globally, who encourage and fuel our thinking?

I think the potential is there. But we have to make better use of it.

It's... Complicated

I so liked Jeremy Denk's "Love is Complicated" post -- and Janet's wise comment (August 17), along with bratschegirl's (August 26), in response. 

You might want to take a note of bratschegirl's observation (quoted below), bearing it in mind when next you're discussing your architecture with the management team:

"In the orchestra world, we have a similar phenomenon when it comes to contract negotiations. It’s the inevitable discussion of dress code. Janice Galassi had a wonderful take on this some years ago, and what she said basically boils down as follows: Board presidents often don’t understand the ins and outs of multiple doubles or why the principal horn needs an assistant on a program containing the complete orchestral works of Richard Strauss. But clothing? That they get, and therefore they bring it up. Once it’s all over, of course, it’s rather amusing to recount such things as the objection to velvet onstage because it’s “too black,” but it’s rather tooth-gratingly hard to get through with a straight face at the time." -- bratschegirl, comment on Jeremy Denk's "Love is Complicated" post
 

Visually Speaking

"You can see a lot just by looking." -- Yogi Berra

When I heard that, I thought about software visualization and how it enables us to see a lot (anomalies, patterns, relationships, etc.) just by looking. But, seeking the context in which Yogi Berra was supposed to have said that, I found this: She Was Seeing At Me, Mark Lieberman, Feb 9, 2008

The cartoon connects nicely with the Howl's Moving Castle reference (which I eliminated from this facade). The snippet from A Scandal in Bohemia is also marvelously architecturally significant!

Sometimes we look without seeing, and see without observing. And sometimes we're not even looking, until someone changes how we view something, and then we see. Like code we know like the back of our hand. But really, how well do you know the back of your hand? Its structure and texture, anomalies and emergent... omw! ;-)

On The Funny Side

• Visually punny
• DDT (huh? development driven testing -- the new big thing! It even has a -Driven acronym...)

Sketching Software

This tweet

pointed me to Greg Wilson and Jorge Aranda's article in the American Scientist titled "Empirical Software Engineering." And that article pointed me to this  wonderful paper on sketching in software development, and the use of diagrams to understand, to design and to communicate: 

• Mauro Cherubini, Gina Venolia, Rob DeLine, and Andrew J. Ko: “Let’s Go to the Whiteboard: How and Why Software Developers Use Drawings”. CHI 2007.

Now I do think that reflecting on the results of one study done internally within one company and treating UML as a closed matter is... unfortunate. That the company was Microsoft is at least interesting, given rivalries and NIH... If the company studied had been an active user of UML, the motivation for and use of sketching may have been about the same, but the notation used less ad hoc. An interesting study would be to compare the retention and evolution of design diagrams in companies where UML is used versus those where it is not. And to compare measures of structural integrity over time.

One might further ask if the "awkward result" we should attend to is the rampant problem of the erosion of code quality over time, and the failure to instill a design discipline that values designs enough to evolve designs in lock-step with code -- maintaining designs and their context and rationale as first class citizens of the software body of work, valued for their contribution to more simple, more clean code designs. Useful design views mind you.  Which is to say, as far as compute rendered goes, we need to be zoom in and out on levels of abstraction and drill into mechanisms with more levels of control over what is depicted.

It is unfortunate that we, as a field, got so enamored with the tool-as-shiny-object thing, and then so disenthralled with the overload of class-level models that we swung the pendulum the other way. We use UML in a lightweight way for simple sketches, and it would be useful I think, if developers were widely taught to match model rigor -- not to mention levels of abstraction -- to the demands of the occasion they face.     

 

I also write at: - Resources for Software, System and Enterprise 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   Feedback: 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! I can be reached at Restrictions on Use: If you wish to quote or paraphrase original work on this page, please properly acknowledge 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.

Visualization - Links to tools and other resources   Misc. - Other Interests - Introducing Archman - Picture It presentation   Email: -