Entanglement (or there’s nothing new under the sun)

I’ve just read The Age of Entanglement : When Quantum Physics was Reborn by Louisa Gilder. It’s a tremendous book, looking at the interplay between great physicists over the whole of the 20th century. If you want to learn about quantum physics itself, this is probably not the book for you, but if a mix of science and history is your thing, then I can’t recommend this book enough. But that’s not why I’m writing this post.

As I read the book, there were two passages that jumped out at me because they were so relevant to experiences I have regularly. One was about testing and the other was about collaboration. Maybe I shouldn’t have been surprised, but there you have it – I was.

Experimental physicists understand that testing saves time. They sound a lot like developers who:
“want to slap it all together, turn it on, and see what happens.”
“you can almost guarantee it’s not going to work right.”
Doesn’t this sound familiar? Their conclusion might sound familiar too:
“People always think you don’t have the time to test everything. The truth is you don’t not have the time. It’s actually a time-saving way of doing it.”

And then I found the description of a conference that sounded like a pre-cursor to the modern, open space ‘unconferences’ that have been springing up. An explicit acknowledgement that:
“the best part of any conference is always the conversation over coffee or beer, the chance meeting in the hall, the argument over dinner.”
This led directly to their decision to:
“organise their conference to be nothing but these events. No prepared talks, no schedule, no proceedings.”
I’ve heard of regular, private get-togethers like this that go on in the software community, where a selected group of invitees hole up […]

By |February 19th, 2015|Musings, Practices, Systems, Unit testing|0 Comments

The context and definition challenge

We’re very good at rationalising. Almost any statement can be justified by the retroactive application of the twin constraints of “context” and “definition.”

As an example, Chris Matts (@papachrismatts) talked about the “death of Agile” in a recent blog post of his, and I took issue with that. We talked about it briefly at a couple of conferences and he explained why it made sense to him:

– context: “Agile” as a set of recipes, not values (c.f. Scrum, SAFe, DAD and accompanying certifications)
– definition: “Dead” means devalued through repeatedly over-promising and under-delivering

I still don’t think that agile has died, and neither does Chris in the general sense, but given the specific circumstances of his post the statement makes sense. But it took me time and effort to gain that understanding – time and effort that someone looking for a reference to support their view might not invest.

Neil Killick (@neil_killick) makes a good point that we often use controversy to stimulate debate, so should we care that our words can be misinterpreted, or quoted out of context? I think the answer is sometimes. Influential members of any community should consider carefully how the constituency that they are addressing might (mis)interpret their statements. No matter how much you may hope that people will think for themselves, the pronouncements of “thought leaders” carry a weight that cannot be ignored.

Misinterpretation of the written word is all too common, however. The “Three Amigos” meeting at the heart of Behaviour Driven Development (BDD) emphasises the need to have frequent, open, high bandwidth collaboration between technical and non-technical participants for just this reason. The differing perspectives of the participants challenge the implicit assumptions of the others.

If you make strong assertions in your tweets, […]

By |December 3rd, 2013|Agile, doa|0 Comments