Ivan Marks - the people's champion

is an excellent book from Media Press (isbn 978-0-9567015-9-6). As usual I'm going to quote from a few pages:
Young anglers were encouraged and taught the basic skills by more experienced anglers. The club would fish matches where novice anglers were paired off with the top men. For two hours the older angler sat patiently with his pupil explaining the correct tactics to use.
There are, of course, times of the year when the facility to make maggots sink at a reduced rate of fall is a great advantage, especially in still water.
A 4lb chub will eat a half-pint of casters.
His [Benny Ashurst] maxim was always to keep the fish feeding for as long as you can.
Tanked fish have been fed yellow maggots and given an electric shock every time the made a move to eat one. The same fish were fed white maggots and allowed to take what they liked without interference. Later, when those same fish were fed mixed yellow and whites they wouldn't look at the yellows - and can you blame them? That experiment proves that fish can learn.
The real secret with loose-feeding is regularity.
You must not panic and fool yourself into believing that the more stuff you throw in, the more fish will come out.
I told the Italian team manager that I might have taken the individual honours had I been able to stay catching bleak of around that weight. "No Ivan," said the Italian, "it isn't possible!" He explained that my 1oz bleak was a fat and none too healthy fish, and he was right. It looked spawn-bound. In fact he said it had a worm infection. And he explained that fish in that condition are not fit fish. They don't move to the bait fast enough - even if there are enough of them - to allow true speed fishing. Which helps explain just how deeply the Italians have delved into this type of fishing.
A barbless hook punctures the bait, but fills the hole it makes.
Roach and bream don't grab your bait with their teeth. They simply inhale water into their mouths and this sucking process puts the bait where you want it to go.
The biggest risk of breaking a line comes from shock impact. Sudden shock is to be avoided at all costs.

Fun and learning at Ericsson

I had the pleasure of teaching a TDD C++ course at Ericsson's Jorvas centre in Helsinki this week. As usual I made heavy use of cyber-dojo. Above is a screen shot of the dashboard of one of the practice katas. My evals were 5.8 for the course as a whole and 5.9 for teaching skills (out of 6). Some of the comments were:
  • Very clear.
  • You really got us understanding TDD.
  • Transformation of the mindset became clearly visible during the course.
  • Thanks!
  • Best course I've taken at Ericsson, thank you.
  • The cyberdojo is an excellent environment.
  • Very good hands on training.
  • cyber-dojo extremely nice.
  • It was fun!
  • You really need to try to do TDD in practice to see how beneficial and fun it is.
  • You made it visible in practice.
  • Fun fun fun.

Nicer HTML radio buttons

One of my pet peeves is plain html radio buttons. If I have a set of 5 radio buttons with 5 text labels of differing lengths then I want to be able to click anywhere on the shaded area and not just the text labels.

This is quite easy to achieve. Simply put each <input> into a <div>...
<div class="radio">
  <input type="radio" ... value="Red"/>
    <label>Red</label>
</div>
<div class="radio">
  <input type="radio" ... value="Amber"/>
    <label>Amber</label>
</div>
<div class="radio">
  <input type="radio" ... value="Green"/>
    <label>Green</label>
</div>
...and use a bit of jQuery
var $j = jQuery.noConflict();
$j(document).ready(function() {
  $j('div.Radio').each(function(n,node) {
    $j(node).click(function() {
      $j(this).children(':first').attr('checked', true);
    });
  });
});
Using a <div> changes the layout - so you might want to put each <div> into a table layout.

You can add some CSS to highlight the clickable whitespace...
  .Radio { background-color: Moccasin; }
  .Radio::after { content: "\00a0"; }
If you want to remove the bullet simply add the following
$j(document).ready(function() {
  $j('input[type=radio]').hide();
};
If you want to see an example of this, just try CyberDojo

Complexity and postmodernism - understanding complex systems

is an excellent book by Paul Cilliers (isbn 0-415-15287-9). As usual I'm going to quote from a few pages:
Complex systems operate under conditions far from equilibrium. There has to be a constant flow of energy to maintain the organisation of the system and to ensure its survival.
If resources were limitless, i.e., if growth could take place unrestricted, no meaningful structure would evolve. Boundaries, limits and constraints are preconditions for structure.
The theory of self-organised criticality tells us the following. A self-organising system will try to balance itself and a critical point between rigid order and chaos.
The classic definition of stability states that in a stable system small causes produce small effects.
The classical definition of instability, at least as used by Poincaré, is probabilistic. Unstable events are defined as events that have no observable cause.
The system of language transcends the choices of any individual user, and therefore has stability.
In the last analysis, the two facts are interdependent: the sign is exposed to alteration because it perpetuates itself.
When dealing with complex phenomena, no single method will yield the whole truth.

Bare bones ruby unit testing

This morning I spent a happy hour exploring a little of ruby's Test::Unit::TestCase. I started with this:
require 'test/unit'

class MyTest < Test::Unit::TestCase

  def test_one_plus_one_equals_two
    assert_equal 2, 1+1.1
  end

end
I wanted to see how little I needed to write my own, super-minimal implementation of Test::Unit::TestCase...
require 'test/unit'

class MyTest < MyTestCase

  def test_one_plus_one_equals_two
    assert_equal 2, 1+1.1
  end

end
After 204 traffic lights in cyber-dojo I ended up with this...
require 'assertion_failed_error'

class MyTestCase

  def self.test_names
    public_instance_methods.select{|name| name =~ /^test_/}
  end
  
  def assert_equal( expected, actual )
    message = 
      "#{expected.inspect} expected but was\n" +
      "#{actual.inspect}\n"
    assert_block(message) { expected == actual }
  end

  def assert_block( message )
    if (! yield)
      raise AssertionFailedError.new(message.to_s)
    end
  end

end

at_exit do
  ::ObjectSpace.each_object(Class) do |klass|
    if (klass < MyTestCase)
      klass.test_names.each do |method_name| 
        begin
          klass.new.send method_name
        rescue AssertionFailedError => error
          print "#{klass.name}:#{method_name}:\n" +
                "#{error.message}"
        end
      end
    end
  end
end
class AssertionFailedError < RuntimeError; end
which allowed me write...
require 'my_test_case'

class MyTest < MyTestCase

  def test_one_plus_one_equals_two
    assert_equal 2, 1+1.1
  end

end
and finally, I added this...
class MyTestCase
  ...
  def self.test( name, &block )
    define_method("test_#{name}".to_sym, &block)
  end
  ...
end
which allowed me to rewrite the test as...
require 'my_test_case'

class MyTest < MyTestCase

  test "1+1 == 2" do
    assert_equal 2, 1+1.1
  end

end
Fun :-)

The Vizzini school of bad management

  • Am I going mad or did the word "think" escape your lips?
  • Hurry up
  • Inconceivable
  • Faster!
  • You know what a hurry we're in
  • I'm waiting!
  • Catch up with us quickly
  • I do not accept excuses
  • Did I make it clear that your job is on the line?
  • There will be no one to hear you scream
  • Stop doing that. We can relax, it's almost over


renaming a sub-directory with a space in it in git

Suppose you have a git sub-directory with a space in it...
/outer/old name/
It appears you cannot rename the sub-directory with a space in it to a different name which also has a space in it. For example, the following does not work...
git mv -f "outer/old name/" "outer/new name/"
However, after much trial and error, I have found the following which does work...
git mv -f "outer/old name/" "outer/temp-name/"
git commit -m "rename subfolder with space part 1/2"
git mv -f "outer/temp-name/" "outer/new name/"
git commit -m "rename subfolder with space part 2/2"
Hope this proves useful to someone.

my kanban 1's board game

Here's a slide deck explaining the essence of my kanban 1s board game. Jon Jaggers Kanban 1s Board Game
  • You can play an early session with no clips so the players can see how inventory builds up (you can also push done story-cards to the next edge's corner, rather than waiting for them to be pulled).
  • The clips that hold the story-cards are a crucial part of the game. They make it a kanban game.
  • You can limit the number of clips per edge to create a natural work-in-progress (wip) limit.
  • You can add a new rule: players can also spend a 1 to split a story-card in two, eg a 4 into a 3 and a 1 (assuming they have a spare clip).
  • You can record the day a story-card comes off the backlog, and also the day it gets to done and thus measure the cycle time.
  • You can simulate scrum-style discrete sprints.
  • You can vary the number of dice at different edges.


Isolating legacy C code from external dependencies

Code naturally resists being isolated if it isn't designed to be isolatable. Isolating legacy code from external dependencies can be awkward. In C and C++ the transitive nature of #includes is the most obvious and direct reflection of the high-coupling such code exhibits. However, there is a technique you can use to isolate a source file by cutting all it's #includes. It relies on a little known third way of writing a #include. From the C standard:

6.10.2 Source file inclusion
...
A preprocessing directive of the form:
  #include pp-tokens 
(that does not match one of the two previous forms) is permitted. The preprocessing tokens after include in the directive are processed just as in normal text. ... The directive resulting after all replacements shall match one of the two previous forms.


An example. Suppose you have a legacy C source file that you want to write some unit tests for. For example:
/*  legacy.c  */
#include "wibble.h"
#include <stdio.h>
...
int legacy(int a, int b)
{
    FILE * stream = fopen("some_file.txt", "w");
    char buffer[256];
    int result = sprintf(buffer, 
                         "%d:%d:%d", a, b, a * b);
    fwrite(buffer, 1, sizeof buffer, stream);
    fclose(stream);
    return result;
}
Your first step is to create a file called nothing.h as follows:
/* nothing! */
nothing.h is a file containing nothing and is an example of the Null Object Pattern. Then you refactor legacy.c to this:
/* legacy.c */
#if defined(UNIT_TEST)
#  define LOCAL(header) "nothing.h"
#  define SYSTEM(header) "nothing.h"
#else
#  define LOCAL(header) #header
#  define SYSTEM(header) <header>
#endif

#include LOCAL(wibble.h)  /* <--- */
#include SYSTEM(stdio.h)  /* <--- */
...
int legacy(int a, int b)
{
    FILE * stream = fopen("some_file.txt", "w");
    char buffer[256];
    int result = sprintf(buffer, 
                         "%d:%d:%d", a, b, a*b);
    fwrite(buffer, 1, sizeof buffer, stream);
    fclose(stream);
    return result;
}
Now structure your unit-tests for legacy.c as follows:
First you write null implementations of the external dependencies you want to fake (more Null Object Pattern):
/* legacy.test.c: Part 1 */

static FILE * fopen(const char * restrict filename, 
                    const char * restrict mode)
{
    return 0;
}

static size_t fwrite(const void * restrict ptr,   
                     size_t size, 
                     size_t nelem, 
                     FILE * restrict stream)
{
    return 0;
}

static int fclose(FILE * stream)
{
    return 0;
}
Then #include the source file. Note carefully that you're #including legacy.c here and not legacy.h and you're #defining UNIT_TEST so that legacy.c will have no #includes of its own:
/* legacy.test.c: Part 2 */
#define UNIT_TEST
#include "legacy.c" 
Then write your tests:
/* legacy.test.c: Part 3 */
#include <assert.h>

void first_unit_test_for_legacy(void)
{
    /* writes "2:9:18" which is 6 chars */
    assert(6, legacy(2,9));
}

int main(void)
{
    first_unit_test_for_legacy();
    return 0;
}
When you compile legacy.test.c you will find your first problem - it does not compile! You have cut away all the #includes which cuts away not only the function declarations but also the type definitions, such as FILE which is a type used in the code under test, as well as in the real and the null fopen, fwrite, and fclose functions. What you need to do now is introduce a seam only for the functions:
/* stdio.seam.h */
#ifndef STDIO_SEAM_INCLUDED
#define STDIO_SEAM_INCLUDED

#include <stdio.h>

struct stdio_t
{
    FILE * (*fopen)(const char * restrict filename, 
                    const char * restrict mode);
    size_t (*fwrite)(const void * restrict ptr, 
                     size_t size,  
                     size_t nelem, 
                     FILE * restrict stream);
    int (*fclose)(FILE * stream);
};

extern const struct stdio_t stdio;

#endif    
Now you Lean On The Compiler and refactor legacy.c to use stdio.seam.h:
/* legacy.c */   
#if defined(UNIT_TEST)
#  define LOCAL(header) "nothing.h"
#  define SYSTEM(header) "nothing.h"
#else
#  define LOCAL(header) #header
#  define SYSTEM(header) <header>
#endif

#include LOCAL(wibble.h) 
#include LOCAL(stdio.seam.h)  /* <--- */
...
int legacy(int a, int b)
{
    FILE * stream = stdio.fopen("some_file.txt", "w");
    char buffer[256];
    int result = sprintf(buffer, 
                         "%d:%d:%d", a, b, a*b);
    stdio.fwrite(buffer, 1, sizeof buffer, stream);
    stdio.fclose(stream);
    return result;
}    
Now you can structure your null functions as follows:
/* legacy.test.c: Part 1 */
#include "stdio.seam.h"

static FILE * null_fopen(const char * restrict filename, 
                         const char * restrict mode)
{
    return 0;
}

static size_t null_fwrite(const void * restrict ptr, 
                          size_t size, 
                          size_t nelem, 
                          FILE * restrict stream)
{
    return 0;
}

static int null_fclose(FILE * stream)
{
    return 0;
}

const struct stdio_t stdio =
{
    .fopen  = null_fopen,
    .fwrite = null_fwrite,
    .fclose = null_fclose,
};    
And viola, you have a unit test. Now you have your knife in the seam you can push it in a bit further. For example, you can do a little spying:
/* legacy.test.c: Part 1 */
#include "stdio.seam.h"
#include <assert.h>
#include <string.h>

static FILE * null_fopen(const char * restrict filename, 
                         const char * restrict mode)
{
    return 0;
}
    
static size_t spy_fwrite(const void * restrict ptr, 
                         size_t size, 
                         size_t nelem, 
                         FILE * restrict stream)
{
    assert(strmp("2:9:18", ptr) == 0);
    return 0;
}

static int null_fclose(FILE * stream)
{
    return 0;
}

const struct stdio_t stdio =
{
    .fopen  = null_fopen,
    .fwrite =  spy_fwrite,
    .fclose = null_fclose,
};
This approach is pretty brutal, but it might just allow you to create an initial seam which you can then gradually prise open. If nothing else it allows you to create characterisation tests to familiarize yourself with legacy code.

You'll also need to create a trivial implementation of stdio.seam.h that the real code uses:
/* stdio.seam.c */
#include "stdio.seam.h"
#include <stdio.h>

const struct stdio_t stdio =
{
    .fopen  = fopen,
    .fwrite = fwrite,
    .fclose = fclose,
};
The -include compiler option might also prove useful.

-include file
    Process file as if #include "file" appeared as the first line of the primary source file.


Using this you can create the following file:
/* include.seam.h */
#ifndef INCLUDE_SEAM
#define INCLUDE_SEAM

#if defined(UNIT_TEST)
#  define LOCAL(header) "nothing.h"
#  define SYSTEM(header) "nothing.h"
#else
#  define LOCAL(header) #header
#  define SYSTEM(header) <header>
#endif

#endif
and then compile with the -include include.seam.h option.

This allows your legacy.c file to look like this:
#include LOCAL(wibble.h) 
#include LOCAL(stdio.seam.h)
...
int legacy(int a, int b)
{
    FILE * stream = stdio.fopen("some_file.txt", "w");
    char buffer[256];
    int result = sprintf(buffer, "%d:%d:%d", a, b, a*b);
    stdio.fwrite(buffer, 1, sizeof buffer, stream);
    stdio.fclose(stream);
    return result;
}    


every teardrop is a waterfall

I was listening to Coldplay the other day and got to thinking about waterfalls. The classic waterfall diagram is written something like this:

Analysis
    leading down to...
Design
    leading down to...
Implementation
    leading down to...
Testing.

The Testing phase at the end of the process is perhaps the biggest giveaway that something is very wrong. In waterfall, the testing phase at the end is what's known as a euphemism. Or, more technically, a lie. Testing at the end of waterfall is really Debugging. Debugging at the end of the process is one of the key dynamics that prevents waterfall from working. There are at least two reasons:

The first is that of all the activities performed in software development, debugging is the one that is the least estimable. And that's saying something! You don't know how long it's going to take to find the source of a bug let alone fix it. I recall listening to a speaker at a conference who polled the audience to see who'd spent the most time tracking down a bug (the word bug is another euphemism). It was just like an auction! Someone called out "3 days". Someone else shouted "2 weeks". Up and up it went. The poor "winner" had spent all day, every day, 9am-5pm for 3 months hunting one bug. And it wasn't even a very large audience. This 'debug it into existence' approach is one of the reasons waterfall projects take 90% of the time to get to 90% "done" (done is another euphemism) and then another 90% of the time to get to 100% done.

The second reason is Why do cars have brakes?. In waterfall, even if testing was testing rather than debugging, putting it at the end of the process means you'll have been driving around during analysis, design and implementation with no brakes! You won't be able to stop! And again, this tells you why waterfall projects take 90% of the time to get to 90% done and then another 90% of the time to get to 100% done. Assuming of course that they don't crash.

In Test First Development, the testing really is testing and it really is first. The tests become an executable specification. Specifying is the opposite of debugging. The first 8 letters of specification are S, P, E, C, I, F, I, C.
A test is specific in exactly the same way a debugging session is not.

Coupling, overcrowding, refactoring, and death

I read The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night Time by Mark Haddon last week. I loved it. At one point the main character, Christopher, talks about this equation:

Pg+1 = α Pg (1 - Pg)

This equation was described in the 1970s by Robert May, George Oster, and Jim Yorke. You can read about it here. The gist is it models a population over time, a population at generationg+1 being affected by the population at generation g. If there is no overcrowding then each member of the population at generation g, denoted Pg, produces α offspring, all of whom survive. So the population at generation g+1, denoted Pg+1 equals α Pg. The additional term, (1 - Pg ) represents feedback from overcrowding. Some interesting things happen depending on the value of α
  • α < 1: The population goes extinct.
  • 1 < α < 3 : The population rises to a value and then stays there.
  • 3 < α < 3.57 : The population alternates between boom and bust.
  • 3.57 < α : The population appears to fluctuate randomly.
In biological systems each generation has a natural lifespan. The cycle of death naturally helps to reduce overcrowding. But even with the inevitable death of each generation, the system's behaviour is delicately poised. Once α gets into the 3 - 3.57 range the growth starts to outpace the death leading to a rising population, but this leads to overcrowding which reduces the growth leading to a falling population. That reduces overcrowding, and growth rises again. The population repeats in a stable up/down cycle. But only because of the inevitable death. And only while the rate of death is sufficiently high to maintain the cycle. Once α gets beyond 3.57 the rate of death can no longer regulate the increased rate of growth and the system destabilises.

You can think about the process of writing software with this equation.

You can think of over-crowding as being analogous to over-coupling. We feel that a codebase is hard to work with, difficult to live in, if it resists our attempts to work with it. When it resists it is the coupling that is resisting.

You can also think of death as being analogous to refactoring. Just as death reduces overcrowding, so refactoring reduces coupling.

Refactoring is a hugely important dynamic in software development. Without refactoring a codebase can grow without check. Growing without check is bad. It leads to overcrowding. Overcrowding hinders growth.

Incremental development



Out of the crisis

is an excellent book by W. Edwards Deming (isbn 0-911379-01-0). As usual I'm going to quote from a few pages:
All industries, manufacturing and service, are subject to the same principles of management.
Quality comes not from inspection, but from improvement of the production process.
Today, 19 foreman out of 20 were never on the job that they supervise.
Fear amongst salaried workers may be attributed in large part to the annual rating of performance.
Absenteeism is largely a function of supervision. If people feel important to a job, they will come to work.
He that would run his company on visible figures alone will in time have neither company nor figures.
There has never been a definitive study of quality in the dental profession; nor is there likely to be one. Partly because they tend to work alone, dentists resist the idea of being evaluated, or even observed, by others.
Where there is fear, there will be wrong figures.
It is well known that rework piles up: no one wishes to tackle it.
This company had been sending a letter to every driver at every mistake. It made no difference whether this was the one mistake of the year for this driver, or the 15th: the letter was exactly the same. What does the driver who has received 15 warnings, all alike, think of the management?

Cause is effect and effect is cause and vice versa


Defects cause lateness.


The more defects code has the more time and effort it takes to get it to done. This seems a self-evident truth. But beware! The Causation Fallacy says it is not easy to know what is cause and what is effect. If a feature misses its deadline pressure often builds to ensure it doesn't miss the next deadline. And under pressure people don't think faster. Extra pressure usually increases the likelihood of defects. This suggests


Lateness causes defects.


So do defects cause lateness, or does lateness cause defects? Or do they rotate around each other like partners on a dance floor?



sprints, time-boxing, and capacity

A team is doing Scrum with 3 week sprints. Suppose at the end of a sprint they've got nothing to done. What should they do? There's a strong temptation to ask for more time. To make this sprint a 4 week sprint. Most of the work in progress is 90% done, they say. Another week and things will have got to done, they say. It seems reasonable.


Trying to run systems beyond their capacity is not a good idea. In this situation Scrum's fixed-duration time-box constraint has served it's purpose admirably. The problem is not the choice of 3 weeks. Changing 3 weeks into 4 weeks is not addressing the problem. The problem is the team planned to pull in an amount of work and get it to done in 3 weeks. But they're not yet in control of their process - they don't know what their capacity is. They pulled in more than 3 weeks worth of work. Probably a lot more. But we just don't know!


In The Toyota Way, Jeffrey Liker writes:

Taiichi Ohno considered the fundamental waste to be overproduction, since it causes most of the other wastes.

Advice from a genius with a lifetime's experience. Toyota manufactures cars. It makes cars. Its production line is an actual line. If manufacturers are prone to overproduction imagine how much more prone software developers are! The things we make are not even physical things. In software, things are mostly invisible. It's difficult to manage what you can't see. In Quality Software Management volume 2, First-Order Measurement, Jerry Weinberg writes:

Without visibility, control is not possible.
If you can't see, you can't steer.

Rather than asking for another week, the team should really be thinking about addressing their real problem. Their real problem is that they're pulling in too much work. They have to somehow learn to pull in less work. So they can start to be in control of their process rather than their process being in control of them.



culture

Back to quotes table-of-contents

From Quality Software Management: Vol 2. First Order Measurement
Culture makes its presence known through patterns that persist over time.

One of the most sensitive measures of the cultural pattern of any organization is how quickly it finds and removes problems.

From The Toyota Way
Building a culture takes years of applying a consistent approach with consistent principles.

From XP and Culture Change
A process change will always involve a cultural change.

Because culture embodies perception and action together, changing culture is difficult and prone to backsliding.

From Quality Software Management: Vol 3. Congruent Action
Culture makes language, then language makes culture.

From Beating the System
Culture is what we do when we do not consciously decide what to do.

From Freedom from Command and Control
Consultants who see culture change as something distinct from the work and, as a corollary, something that can be the subject of an intervention, miss the point. When you change the way work is designed and managed, and make those who do the work the central part of the intervention, the culture changes dramatically as a consequence.

From Leverage points
One aspect of almost every culture is the belief in the utter superiority of that culture.

From John Seddon
Culture change is free [because] it's a product of the system.

From Notes on the Synthesis of Form
Culture is changing faster than it has ever changed before...what once took many generations of gradual development is now attempted by a single individual.

From Slack
Successful change can only come about in the context of a clear understanding of what may never change, what the organization stands for... the organization's culture... If nothing is declared unchangeable, then the organization will resist all change. When there is no defining vision, the only way the organization can define itself is its stasis.

From The Hidden Dimension
As Freud and his followers observed, our own culture tends to stress that which can be controlled and to deny that which cannot.

From The Silent Language
Culture hides much more than it reveals, and strangely enough what it hides, it hides most effectively from its own participants.

An often noted characteristic of culture change is that an idea or a practice will hold on very persistently, apparently resisting all efforts to move it, and then, suddenly, without notice, it will collapse.

hunger is the best source

I've previously blogged about being taught ITA spelling at primary school. About how it causes me spelling problems. I was reminded of this when speaking to Geir Amdal at the excellent Agile Coach Camp in Oslo. Geir showed me this wonderful blog post with lovely twist on the famous quote:

Knowledge is power.
Francis Bacon

It reminded me of something my Mum used to say to me when I was little:

Hunger is the best source.

For many many years I didn't understand what she was saying. I was seeing the word sauce as source. She was actually saying:

Hunger is the best sauce.

Food tastes better when you're hungry. Reflecting on my confusion I realize I'm actually quite proud of this mistake. This was a long time ago remember. I was a small boy at the time. Even then, it seems, software was calling me.

Smoking cigarettes, eating sweets, dropping litter, and drinking coffee

I was speaking to Olaf Lewitz at the awesome Oslo coach camp last week. We were discussing why drinking coffee doesn't create the same social dynamic as smoking cigarettes. I chatted with Geir Amdal too and quite by chance he mentioned he's given up smoking. And how approaching a work colleague and asking if they want to go outside for a smoke is not the same as asking if they want to go outside for a talk.

Then I remembered something Olve Maudal said to me recently. He said that kids being allowed to eat sweets on Sundays was not really about kids being allowed to eat sweets on Sundays at all. It was really about kids not being allowed to eat sweets on any day except Sunday. Similarly, apparently in the USA when you're driving along you sometimes see a big sign at the side of the road saying "Litter here" and then another sign a mile or so later saying "Stop littering". These signs are also not really about littering. They're about not littering in the places outside the designated littering zones.

There's a crucial difference between smoking and drinking coffee. Smokers tend to smoke in groups in designated areas because smoking is not allowed except in those areas. Coffee is different. Drinking coffee is, by default, allowed everywhere. When you want a coffee you walk to the coffee machine and make a cup of coffee. There's often no one else at the coffee machine so you take your cup of coffee back to your work desk. It is precisely this take-it-back-to-your-desk default which is why there is only rarely someone else at the coffee machine. It is a self-fulfilling dynamic.

If you want to encourage more social interaction between your team members here's what you might do:

  • Buy machines that make really good coffee.
  • Put them in a nice area with lots of space to congregate in.
  • Ban drinking coffee at work-desks.
The third step might seem a bit draconian. But it's vital. You could justify it on the grounds that spilling coffee onto expensive computers will waste money. But the real reason it to encourage developers to drink their coffee near the coffee machine. Together. To encourage communication.

my kindle book-case

Here's a photo of the kindle I bought myself for Xmas.



When I bought my kindle I forgot to get a case to protect it. I searched around on a few sites looking for a case but didn't find anything I particularly liked. Before I knew it, it was time to head off to the awesome Agile Coach Camp Norway 2012. I wanted to take my kindle but needed a case to protect it. It was too late too order a case via the internet. But I had an idea. I could use a book! A regular old-fashioned hardback book.



I simply cut out a kindle-sized panel from the middle of about 100 pages and then glued the holed pages all together:



Viola, I have a case for my kindle. A book-case you might say.



I showed off my new book-case at the coach camp. It was a hit. At dinner one evening Marc Johnson mentioned he too has a kindle and loves it but misses the social aspect of a real book. The simple fact that most real books display the book's title on its front cover. People can see what you're reading. I sat next to a really interesting man on a plane once. He noticed I was reading Jerry Weinberg's Quality Software Management, vol 2, First-Order Measurement and asked me about it. We chatted away the whole flight.

My kindle book-case allows me to regain this missing social aspect. I can simply print the cover the publishers use for the real book and stick it to the front. So now I have something close to my ideal kindle case. It just needs a clear front cover sleeve so I can easily slide a cover in. And some kind of clasp. As a final bonus, I can pay homage to one of my favourite films:



Managing the design factory

is an excellent book by Don Reinersten (isbn o-684-83991-1). This is the second snippet entry for this book (here's the first). It continues my current theme of preferring to re-read a good book many times. As usual I'm going to quote from a few pages:
Whenever we see an intense need for communications it is typically a sign that the system has been incorrectly partitioned.
A complex system can often be built faster when there are stable steps along the way. This is what Nobel laureate Herbert Simon called "stable intermediate forms" in his book The Sciences of Artificial.
We cannot predict the behaviour of a system simply by understanding the behaviour of its components.
There are more possible interactions in a system of 150 components than there are atoms in the universe.
The act of partioning the system is extremely important, because it creates interfaces… these interfaces are both the primary source of value within a system and the primary source of complexity.
The nonlinear behaviour of queueing systems will amplify variability within the system.
We get into an interesting death spiral when we overload our development process. Overloads cause queues; queues, being nonlinear, raise the variability of our process, and variability raises the size of queues.
The weak cross-functional communication of the functional form sacrifices our other economic objectives.
In life, we design most processes for repetitive activities because a process is a way of preserving learning that occurs when doing an activity. … We need to find some way to preserve what we have learned without discouraging people from doing new things.
We get large queues whenever we have large batch transfers in the process.
There is a strong interaction between the design of our organisation structure, our architecture, and our development process.