jump to navigation

Data Dictionary Performance – reference September 29, 2009

Posted by mwidlake in internals, Perceptions.
Tags: , ,
1 comment so far

I’ve got a couple more postings on Data Dictionary performance to get where I plan to go to with this, but if you want to deep-dive into far more technical details then go and check out Dion Cho’s excellent posting on fixed object indexes.

I was not planning on getting into the sys.x$ fixed objects as you need SYS access to look at them, which not everyone has, but this is where Dion goes. His posts are always good, I need to check them far more.

As a soft-technical aside, I often mention to people when doing courses on SQL or writing standards or even the odd occasions I’ve discussed perception, that we Westerners are taught to read from left to right, top-to-bottom and we pick out left justification very well. Code laid out like the below we find easy to read:

select pers.name1                surname
      ,pers.name2                first_forename
      ,pers.nameother            middle_names
      ,peap.appdate              appointment_date
      ,decode (addr.name_num_ind
                 ,'N', to_char(addr.housenum)
                 ,'V', addr.housename
                 ,'B', to_char(addr.housenum
                              ||' '||addr.housename)
                                 house_no_name
      ,addr.address2             addr_street
      ,addr.address3             addr_town
      ,addr.address4             addr_dist
      ,addr.code                 addr_code
from person              pers
     ,address            addr
    ,person_appointments peap
where pers.addr_id     =addr.addr_uid
and   pers.pers_id     =peap.pers_id
and   pers.active_fl   ='Y'
and   pers.prim_cons   ='ANDREWSDP'
and   peap.latest_fl   ='Y'

But this is not true of other cultures, where people do not read left to right, top to bottom. I have had this confirmed just a couple of times when people who were born in Eastern cultures are in the course/conversation.

So I was very interested to see Dion’s Korean version of the blogpost I reference above (I really hope this link here to the korean version is stable).
The main body of the page is on the right, not left, but the text appears to be left justified.

Of course, I am horribly ignorant, I do not know which direction Koreans read in :-(. I could be spouting utter rubbish.

Friday Philosophy – Disasters September 4, 2009

Posted by mwidlake in Perceptions.
Tags: , ,
3 comments

Some of you may be aware that I occasionally do presentations called something like:-

“5 Ways to Progress your Career Through Systems Disasters”

The intention of the presentations are to comment on things I have “been in the vicinity of” going wrong in I.T. and ways to avoid them, in a light-hearted manner. Having a bit of a laugh whilst trying to make some serious points about project management, infrastructure, teams, people and the powers of chaos.

I’ll see about putting one up on my Web Site so that you can take a look {check back this weekend if you like}

The talks usually go down well but there are two potential issues in giving the talks:

  • The disasters or problems, if in some way my fault, could make me look like an idiot or incompetent.
  • If it is known who I was working for when I “witnessed a disaster”, it could make that company look bad.

I never used to worry too much about this when I worked permanently for a company that was pretty relaxed about “stuff happens, it is good to share”. After all, if I looked like an idiot then that is fair enough and if I said anything that could be linked back to a prior (or current) employer {which, I hasten to point out, I did aim to avoid} then, well, sorry. But I only said things that were true.

However, when I returned to being self-employed, a good friend of mine took me to one side and suggested such talks could harm my career. I argued that it was not malicious and was helpful to people. My friend argued back that potential employing companies would not look so favourably on this, especially if they suspected that they may one day feature.

Hmmmm…. This was true.

So I toned down the talk…

The next time I did the presentation, the sanitised one, it was not such a hit. In fact, it was a bit rubbish.

The question is, should I have toned it down? Hands up anyone who has not personally done something unbelievably stupid at least once in their working life? Can everyone who has worked for an organisation that has not messed up at least one I.T. project please also raise their hand?

I can’t see any raised hands from here :-)

We all make mistakes.
All companies get things wrong at times.

Something you find when you start presenting or organising events is that the talks people most appreciate and learn the most from are about things going wrong.

So why can’t we all be grown-ups about admitting them, talking about them and learning? Personally, when I have interviewed people for jobs, I am always impressed by someone who will admit to the odd failure, especially if they can show what they learnt from it.

Oh, if anyone is reading this before offering me a position, I never made a mistake in my life, honest. I never deleted every patient record from a hospital information system, I was not even on-site when the incident didn’t happen. And if anyone suggest otherwise, it was a long time ago when it didn’t happen. ..

{I got all the data back, anyway. Never start work without a backup…}

Spending Time in London August 4, 2009

Posted by mwidlake in Blogging, Perceptions.
3 comments

I’m currently working in London, to the west of the centre but within coverage of the underground system. As a result, getting to and from home and work takes a looong time. This gives me a little time to do stuff on my netbook on the train, but if it is really busy and when I am on the tube it is not possible to do this. It’s wasted time.

To keep as much of my sanity intact as I can and reduce the amount of time I spend doing nothing but wondering why all other commuters appear so unfriendly {I know, most of them are thinking exactly the same :-)}, I opt to stay in London a couple of nights a week. The benefit of this is that either I have nothing to do in the evening and I can read manuals and do this blog {or alternatively watch rubbish on TV or read a book}. Or I can go and drink beer with people I know. I don’t know that many people in London, I have to confess, but I have had a couple of very enjoyable evenings so far.

Tonight was with Doug Burns. I don’t know Doug that well, but have enjoyed talking to him at UKOUG meetings and exchanging emails/comments on blogs. It was excellent to spend a couple of hours and maybe one too many beers with Doug and talk about what can only be described as an eclectic range of topics. I also managed to mug him for his excellent presentation on AWR for the next MI SIG meeting in October. I hope that last beer was not too much and he remembers…

This is part of the whole Oracle Community thing. It’s good to Blog, it’s good to go on forums and it is good to exchange emails, but you can’t beat meeting in person, either at conference, at user group meetings or just because you are in the same town that evening. I find once you have met, communicating is a lot easier {I had an excellent night in Newcastle with Piet de Visser about 18 months ago and now we exchange rants and thoughts quite often}. So, if anyone out there is in London and fancies a beer, you could drop me a line. I’ll buy the first one if you ask nicely.

Right, where was that manual on oracle wait interface…Oh, “Celebrity animals have got talent on ice” has come on the TV, maybe I’ll watch that.

COC – The Chain of Optimistic Communication July 1, 2009

Posted by mwidlake in Management, Perceptions.
Tags: ,
3 comments

Well, after the very long, technology-based post of yesterday, a smaller one today, on a management theme.

I came up with this concept of the Chain of Optimistic Communication about a year ago, in one of my presentations on disasters. As a potential disaster, I’ve converted the relevant PowerPoint slides into a Flash movie. This is the flash movie. The second slide is an animation of what the Chain of Optimistic Communication is, the rest is some thoughts on it’s impact and how to avoid it.

{If the flash movie fails and you can read PowerPoints, you can download the
PowerPoint here}

{And another thing, It’s my first Flash attempt, I know the page numbering is duff, I know the layout is a little off, I might fix it when I have had some more sleep}.

If you can’t be bothered with the Flash movie {go on, it’s more fun than reading stuff!}, this is what the Chain of Optimistic Communication is:

  • You, the worker at the coal face are asked by your boss how the development of the new system is going. You tell your boss that it’s not going well at all and you list 3 things that have not been done, one that has been done and one that is partially done. You don’t mention that the partially done one you plan to do tonight, fuelled by coffee and whisky.
  • Your boss tells their boss that progress is being made, half the tasks are in hand but they “need to proactively re-address a resource mismatch or two”.
  • This top level boss tells the VP of development that all is in hand, resources are in place and all bases are covered, but more budget for planning would be wise. 
  • VP of Development reports to the board that the latest Agile development using cross-skilled resource pools is on track to deliver the milestone implementation. Or something.

ie all levels lie, ever so slightly optimistically as they communicate up the management chain.

As a result, the higher the manager, the more rosy the picture and the more out of touch they seem to the worker at the coal face.

When I presented this idea, I got a surprisingly positive response from the audience. It was the most common thing people talked to me about after the presentation, so I guess it struck a chord. Or else it was the point in the presentation when the sound of the caterers dropping a try outside woke them up.

Another side of the Chain of Optimistic Communication is that the higher the manger, the more they are led to believe all is OK and the more often, it seems to them, that apparently “under control” projects flip to become disasters when the rosy white lies have to be ditched when the reality becomes so grim. Often with no warning. No wonder managers get so many heart attacks and strokes.

 

{This is me just trying to get the flash movie to play with my website headers, it will disappear in a couple of hours flash movie}

The Sneaky WHAT Strategy!? June 15, 2009

Posted by mwidlake in biology, Perceptions.
Tags: , , ,
add a comment

OK, I can’t resist any more, I have to write a Blog about this. I apologise up front for any offence I cause anyone, it is not intended.

There has been a bit of a thread between my and Richard Foote’s blog about the Dunning-Kruger effect. This is his post on it. The Dunning Kruger effect (Jonathan Lewis told us what it was called) is where people have an over-inflated opinion of their own ability. Since the names of behavioral traits came up, I have been unable to get something out of my mind.

When I was at college I studied Zoology. In one lecture on animal behaviour we were told about the “Sneaky Fuck3r Strategy”. Yes, you read it right, that is what it is called. {I’ve stuck a ‘3’ in there as I’m concerned I’ll blow up some web filters}.

It was described in the context of Red Deer. A single dominant male has a harem of females during the breeding season. Other big, strong males will challenge the Dominant Stag and, if they win, will take over the harem. So, this one Stag has all the lady deer at his disposal, only challenged by similarly large, aggressive males.

Well, not quite. What sometimes happens is that, when the dominant stag is fighting off a challenge, one of the younger stags will sneak into the herd and mate with one of the females. Thus the term “Sneaky Fuck3r strategy”. Genetic testing shows that quite a few of the deer born are not fathered by the dominant male!

The one little twist added during my lecture was that it had been observed that one young male, male(A), would go and challenge the dominant stag whilst another young male(B) snuck into the herd. Then, a while later Male(B) would challenge the stag and Male(A) would have his turn. I don’t know if that was an unsubstantiated embellishment but is suggests smart as well as sneaky.

I really thought she was pulling our legs about the name, but the lecturer wasn’t. It is a real term, used by real zoologists, though mostly UK-based. You can google it but I won’t blame you if you want to wait until you are not at work to do so!

Many people lay the credit for the name to John Maynard Smith But this article with Tim Clutton-Brockhas an excellent description of the situation {click on “show Transcript” and I suggest you search for the word “sneaky”}. I am not clear if Tim did the original work on the subject though. For some reason I can’t fathom, wikipedia does not mention the strategy in it’s entries for either scientist…

How Much Knowledge is Enough? June 13, 2009

Posted by mwidlake in Blogging, Perceptions, performance.
Tags: , ,
8 comments

I’ve had a bee in my bonnet for a good few years now, which is this:

How do you learn enough about something new to be useful when you are working 40, 50, 60 hours a week?

Another bee is how much do you actually need to know to become useful? The bee following that one is if you do not have enough time to investigate something, how do you find the answer? Buzzing up behind is to fully understand how something works, you often need a staggering amount of back knowledge – how do you get it? Oh dear, it’s a hive in my head, not a single bee.

I am of course in this blog mostly thinking about Oracle and in particular Oracle performance. I think that these days it must be really very hard to get going with performance tuning as it has become such a broad topic. I don’t know if you have noticed but nearly all the performance experts are not in their teens. Or twenties. And precious few in their thirties. Forties are pretty much the norm.  We {and please excuse my audacity in putting myself in such an august group}  have been doing Oracle and performance for many years and have stacked up knowledge and understanding to help us.

For me this issue was thrown into sharp relief about 4 or 5 years ago. I had become a manager and, although I was learning lots of other skills and things, when it came to Oracle Technology I think I was forgetting more than I was learning. Oh, I was learning some new Oracle stuff but it was at a more infrastructure level. The real kick of reality was going to presentations on performance and Oracle internals. At the end of the 90’s I would go along and learn one or two new things but knew 90% of what was said. By the mid 2000’s I would go along and know 50% , the other 50% would be new. Then I went to one talk and found I was scribbling away as I knew precious little of what was being presented. More worryingly, I was struggling with “How does this fit in with what I already know?”.  I just didn’t know enough of the modern stuff.

That was a pivotal moment for me. It had the immediate effect of making me start reading blogs and books and manuals again. It’s not easy to find the time but I soon noticed the benefit. Even if I learnt only a little more one evening a week, I would invariably find that knowledge helping me the very next week or month. I was back on the road to being an expert. {Or so I thought}. Oh, it had a long term effect too. I changed job and went back to the technical, but that is for another day.

But hang on, during my decline I had not stopped being useful. I was still the Oracle performance expert where I worked and could still solve most of the performance issues I came across. It made me realise you do not need to know everything to be useful and you could solve a lot of problems without knowing every little detail of how something works. A good general knowledge of the Oracle environment and a logical approach to problem solving goes a long way.

I actually started to get annoyed by the “attitude” of experts who would bang on and on and on about how you should test everything and prove to yourself that your fix to a problem had fixed itas otherwise it was just being hopeful. I thought to myself “That is fine for you, oh exalted expert, as you have time for all this and don’t have 60 hours of day job to do every week. Give us a break and get real. Most of us have to get the problem solved, move on and get by with imperfect knowledge. Doing all that testing and proving, although nice in a perfect world, is not going to happen”.

Yep, I had an attitude problem :-). I was getting angry at what I now think is just a difference in perception. I’ll come back to that in a moment.

I don’t think I am going to go back on my opinion that for most people in a normal job, there simply is not time to do all the testing and proving and you have to move on, Making do with received knowledge. It just is not an ideal world. However, we need the experts to uncover that knowledge and we need experts who are willing to communicate that knowledge and we need experts we can rely on. I am very, very grateful to the experts I have learned from.  

All the time on blogs, forums and conversations the issue of “how do we know what sources we can trust” regularly comes up. Well, unfortunately I think that if you do not have time to do the testing and learning needed to become an expert yourself, you have to simple chose your experts, accept what they say but remain slightly skeptical about what they say. Everyone makes mistakes after all. I would advise you only accept someone as an expert and rely on their advice if they are willing to demonstrate why they believe what they believe. Everything else is just an unsubstantiated opinion. 

But I’ve come to some conclusions about most of the above questions I started with.

  1. If you are judicious in choosing your sources, you can learn more reliably and easily.
  2. Even a little bit of more knowledge helps and it often comes into use very quickly.
  3. The hard part? You have to make that time to learn, sorry.
  4. Although testing and proving is good, life is not perfect. If you did (1) you might get away without it. But don’t blame the expert if you get caught out.

But I’ve not addressed the point about needing all that back knowledge to fully understand how something works. Well, I think there is no short cut on that one. If you want to be an expert you need that background. And you need to be sure about that background. And that is where it all has fallen apart for me. I started a blog!

I already knew you learn a lot by teaching others, I’ve been running training courses on and off for a few years. But in writing a blog that is open to the whole community, I’ve realised I know less than I thought. A lot less. And if I want to be a source of knowledge, an expert, I have to fill a lot of those gaps. So I am going to have to read a lot, test things, makes sure that when I believe I know something I’ve checked into it and, when I fix something, I know why it is fixed {as best I can, that is} . All those things experts tell us we need to do. And that brings me back to my perception issue. 

Those who I think of as the best in this field all pretty much give the advice to test and prove. And they have to do this themselves all the time, to make sure what they say is right. And they are the best as what they say is nearly always right. It seems to be excellent advice.

However, I think it is only good advice, as it is advice you can’t always take, because there is too much else to do. I think sometimes experts forget that many people are just too pressured at work to do their own testing, not because they don’t want to test but because you can only live so long without sleeping. 

Anyway, I said something foolish about becoming an expert. I better go and check out some other blogs… start reading some manuals… try out a few ideas on my test database.  I’ll get back to you on how I’m progressing on that one in about, say, a year or two? All those gaps to fill….

Hey, it’s not my fault I can’t spell. June 10, 2009

Posted by mwidlake in humour, Perceptions, Private Life.
Tags: , ,
1 comment so far

*Sigh*
I just got pinged by someone to let me know of some spelling mistakes in my blog. I know, I know, just leave me alone OK?!

Do you remember doing the “colour blind” test at school? {And, for our American cousins, “color blind”}. You know, you are shown a few images made up of dots, with numbers in them.

Most of the colour blindness images are far less obvious than this

Well, most people are shown 5 or 6 images and shout out “8”, “16” etc promptly five times and are then shown out – nothing more is said. Some people cry “7”, “34”, “dunno, give me a clue” and after 10 or 12 images get told they can’t distinguish blue & green or red & brown or something and so can’t drive trains or fly fighter planes… Me? I was in there for 5 minutes, coming up with what must have been very confusing answers. They even started showing me the same images again and I remember occasionally going something like “it’s 16 not 6, isn’t it”. Eventually they told me my colour vision was fine and threw me out as a time-waster. I wonder if I can fly fighter planes?

What they should probably have spotted (and a school teacher friend of mine got quite angry about this when I told her this story, as she thought they should have spotted this even back in the late 70’s) was that I could not read for toffee – as I have mild dyslexia. She had been taught how to identify dyslexia in children and one of the easiest ways was, she said, issues with the colour blindness test but without being colour blind.

When I read things I don’t do what a lot of people do, which is kind of pick up the start and end of long words and “see” it. I do it in little spirals. I do not know that I can explain better than that, but if I hit a long word (more than six letters) I start at the begining, flick to the back of the word and work back and if the two don’t meet I spiral in. I wonder if there is a cunning lexical trick I can sell to Oracle Text on that one?

It’s no where near as bad as many, heck I’ve managed to get by OK with it, but spell checkers have been a boon to me. The problem is, I don’t always remember to use them and, even if I do, a word spelt wrongly but is itself a correct word will not be picked up. I know, many packages now also have Grammer Checkers that could pick some of it up, but I find Grammer Checkers so infuriatingly useless, I turn them off.

So, sometimes my spelling is terrible. It’s because I have an IQ of 73, OK? The thing is, I probably got pinged in every exam I took because of it {except Maths, where in all honesty I got past the exams at age 16 and then it all stopped being logical. Sorry Mr Winters, I did my best as you know, but my brain could not do all that more advanced stuff}. I even got bollocked told off during my degree for carpals and carpels but heck, to me both read crapals.

I had particular fun a few years back when I introduced Oracle Partitioning to British Gas. No one had used it before but I had a quiet little application that I was passing over to the production DBAs to look after that did. So, I went over to Hinckley (oooh, thats a doozer to spell) where all the proddy DBAs lived and gave a presentation on Partitioning. Except I was doing it with white boards and OHP and every time I spelt Partitioning I wrote “rtit”, then went back and put in the “Pa” at the start and then tried to finish it off. Usually I managed. That was what prompted the chat with the teacher, I was telling her how that sort of thing happens to me and it’s annoying and she asked about if I had ever been tested for colour blindness.

So, there you go. It’s my excuse. Now you know that either I am right, or I have munchausens syndrome {just look it up, OK? Try this here}.

The odd thing? I can’t always spell “who” but I never get “Dyslexia” wrong.

Unhelpful “helpful” people June 9, 2009

Posted by mwidlake in Management, Perceptions.
Tags: ,
11 comments

I keep meaning to getting back to more technical blogs but I need to spend some time sorting it out first, and something has just bugged the hell out of me, so another “wordy” one today.

Richard Foote has gone back to explaining the basics of indexes and the CBO, which if you are new to CBO or indexes, hot-foote {sorry} it over there immediately and check it out. He is a brilliant teacher.

Near the start, he has a link to someone on one of the OTN forums who is stating the Cost Based Optimiser sucks. I won’t repeat the link. No, sod it, I WILL repeat the link. Here it is. It might elevate the page in google’s scoring but what the heck.

This person’s rather poor outlook on the CBO did not bother me, nor the fact that he is, in my opinion, wrong {he suggests using the rule hint on oracle 10, which is an option but is not, in my opinion, a mighty good idea as (a) who now knows the rules of the Rule Based Optimizer and (b) the hint will be ignored if you are using most new features added since 8, such as bitmap indexes or IOTs or partitioning. It might {and I have no proof for this} cause the feature not understood by the RBO to not be used, so maybe ignoring a nice bitmap index or function based index. Oh, and (c), if you have good stats the CBO usually wins.}.

What irritated me was his/her high-handed and abusive posting. That really annoys me. Then I thought “no, we all lose our temper sometimes and the person they are having a pop at did kind of ask for it”. But because I think that being abusive or condescending on forums is such bad behaviour, I dug a little into the other postings by this person.

Some were helpful. Many were simply links back to other pages or to some front end to Google the person’s question. And several, many, were abusive. Along the lines of “Why are you so stupid”; “If you can’t be bothered reading the manual you don’t deserve help”; “I would not employ you as you are a moron”. You get the idea?

It is a big problem with forums, and actually also in the work place (and occasionally, sadly, at meetings and conference). People being condescending, antagonistic and demeaning to others who do not know what they, the Mighty Brain, knows, who seem to Mighty Brain to not be trying quite as hard as they could or are seemingly asking something obvious.

OK, if it is obvious, give the answer. It might be that you, oh Mighty Brain, did not understand the question. OK, they maybe are not trying hard enough. Suggest to them where they could look, maybe this person has 3 managers breathing down their necks and they just really, really want an expert opinion now as they are not sure which of the seven opinions in google to trust. And Mighty Brain, unless you were born with your knowledge placed in your head by God, as a special force on this earth, you didn’t know what this “moron” does not know at one time. Someone told you or, vary rarely, you worked it out for yourself.

The truly, blood-boilingly, unjust thing about Mighty Brain? They are so sure of their own towering knowledge that they can’t see that they are often wrong.  I can’t think of any Oracle Expert who is widely accepted by their peers who is a “Mighty Brain”. In fact, a common trait of the very best practitioners and teachers (of any subject, not just IT) is that they are always willing to admit they do not know and to learn.

I did look for a way to ask for this particular Mighty Brain to be barred from the forum, but then I just decided to vent my spleen on my blog and have a glass of wine.

I hope that person trips over and really cracks their shins or something. Nothing permanent, just something incredibly painful. Grrrrrr.

Update – Jonanthan Lewis has commented to let me know that this “unskilled and unaware” {what a brilliant phrase} is the Dunning-Kruger effect. The link got filtered out by the comment mechanism, so I’ve posted it {well, maybe a similar one} here. Thanks Jonathan.

The Knowledge Curtain. June 8, 2009

Posted by mwidlake in development, Management, Perceptions.
Tags: , , ,
5 comments

I came across the concept of “The Knowledge Curtain” in the late 90’s, from a man called Lee Young, who I worked with for 2 or 3 years, along with a friend Mike Cox, who was key to showing me how to peek through the curtain.

The below is taken from a powerpoint presentation I sometimes give on project disasters (how to avoid, not how to encounter!):

When systems designers talk to end users, both parties usually end up not really understanding each other

When systems designers talk to end users, both parties usually end up not really understanding each other

The basic principle is that, the knowledge of your users/customers is partly hidden from you. When you ask people for whom you are designing a computer system about their job, they don’t tell you lots of stuff.

  • Things that they assume you know.
  • Things that it does not occur to them to mention.
  • Things that they do not want to admit to doing as it sounds silly or badly managed.
  • I’ve even had people not mention parts of their job as they don’t want their manager knowing they do it.

But that is OK, when you talk about information technology and computer systems to them, they have exactly the same problems with what you say :-).

Lee’s presentation, with N. Mehandjiev, predated the all-encompasing rise of the internet and this is one of the few references to it I can find. {Among the relatively few other hits on the topic, amongst the ones about knowing how to make curtains, are references to the “Knowledge Curtain” as the concept that the Web is not as available in other areas of the world. A related but very different issue}.

So, how do you peak beyond the knowledge curtain? Systems designers and developers with experience learn how to ask the questions “what are the exceptions to what  you have just told me” and “what else do you do” in many, many ways and without giving offence. After all, you have to keep asking these two questions and people naturally get irritated with that and some feel you are suggesting they are either stupid or lying. It can be tricky. 

I think that unless you have someone who is fully IT literate and has done the job the computer system is to assist with, you will inevitably only catch a part of the requirements.

For massive projects over many months or years, I think this lack of a clear understanding of what people do is a major factor to their failures. This is made even worse when the analysis is done by one group of people and the specifications are then shipped out to an external party for the application to be developed. With all that missing knowledge, it is no wonder some systems are initially so poor.

I only know of one method that reliably allows you really see beyond the knowledge curtain. That is prototyping and user feedback. Only when you show the people who are going to use the system what you have put together to help them will they know if it works. These sessions are incredibly valuable and only in development projects where they have been key to process have I seen the project deliver something truely useful.

I now have a general way of developing anything.

  • I ask the users for 3 or 4 major things that they want the system to do.
  • I develop those 3 or 4 features as quickly as possible and show them to the users.
    • One will be almost exactly what they need.
    • One or two will be close to what they need.
    • One will be utterly useless.
    • During the above, one or two critical new needs will come up.
  • Fix the close ones, dump or redo the useless one and add the new needs to the list.

Simply cycle around the above, asking for new features when you have got less than 4 features you  are actively working on. And only polish features (add all the nice screen touches and widgets) once is is exactly what they need or pretty damned close. {You hardly ever run out of features before you run out of time and money!} You end up with an excellent system that evolves to better help the customer as time goes on.

There are lots of development methodologies that have the above principle (or a variation of it) as their core, so I am certainly not the first person to find that this method works. Which is why I find it difficult to understand why so many projects don’t use it?

BTW, I thought I would just add that one of the factors in my starting a blog was a comment by Andrew Clarke on his, several years ago before Blogging really took off. It was for a presentation I did which included the Knoweldge Curtain concept. He was very nice about my presentation and I still appreciate it. This is the link, but as it is an archive you will have to search for my name.

June Management & Infrastructure meeting June 5, 2009

Posted by mwidlake in Meeting notes, Perceptions.
Tags: , ,
add a comment

Wednesday this week saw the first UKOUG Management & Infrastructure meeting special interest group meeting (MI SIG) of the year – postponed from April due to a clash with the G20 summit. You can see details of the meeting here where {if you are a member of the UKOUG} you can download some of the papers.

I feel the MI SIG has been struggling a little over the last few meetings – too many sales pitch presentations and numbers hit by travel woes (we just fell unlucky) and then the recession – but this meeting felt better. We had a good mix of strong presentations and numbers were up. The number of expected delegates has been very variable over the last 2 weeks, at one point we were full (50 people) but then some dropped out, others registered late. We ended up with 39.

At the last meeting I asked if people wanted more on the management side and the majority did, so I pitched a presentation about how to be a Manger in IT. It would have been relevant to management in other disciplines but IT does have some unusal aspects, one being that there is a much higher percentage of introvert and logical personality traits amongst IT people. Soft Skills and considerations of personality do tend to get short change in technology environments too.

Not only did I pitch a touchy-feely topic but I also went powerpoint-naked. I put up a half dozen intro slides and then turned off the projector and just talked. I was more than a tad anxious that this could have fallen flat and ended up as me spewing random drivel from the front, but the audience took up the topic and started chipping in. It snowballed and became a general discussion. I managed to keep it flowing and mentioned most of the things I wanted to include and also took a lot of input from the audience. Maybe one or two of the links I made to add my intended points were a bit tenuous but heck, it was the first time I’d done a free-form presentation like that for years and years.

Not only was the session a success {phew} but it seemed to set the pattern for the rest of day. We had had some good questions being asked of John Nangle during his opening presentation on Exadata (I’d really like to get my hands on one of those units) but after the free-form session everyone seemed to be talking to each other more and all presenters had questions and little discussions to deal with during their sessions. They all dealt with them well.

We rounded off the meeting with a drink in a local hostelry for those who were inclined and the discussions kept going. The general feeling was that it had been an excellent day with people being a lot more interactive than normal. I know other SIGs use “speed chatting” and other things to help encourage people to talk to other delegates. They have found that such things might not initially be popular {what! you want me to talk to strangers?} but always give the meetings a greater feeling of interaction and delegate feedback is that they are {sometimes reluctanatly} recognised as helpful.

I think I’ll try and have some sort of interactive or ice-breaking aspect at future meetings as it seems to really help the day be a success.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 166 other followers