Working Up

by Dwayne Phillips

Other persons are not obligated to do things for me (as much as I wish). I am not obligated to do things for other persons (as much as they wish).

I wish people would fulfill their obligations to me. I mean, look at what I have done for them. Surely, they will repay me or something in kind. What is wrong with them?

I guess some people feel the same way about me. Why don’t I fulfill my obligations to them? I mean, look at what they have done for me. Surely, I will repay them or something in kind. What is wrong with me?

Sigh. I guess we all aren’t as obliged to one another as we wish sometimes in some situations.

Here is something to try. Ask, “Is there something I should be doing?” When the reply is some gesture like, “Oh, no.” Ask again with more force, “Are you sure? Really, is there something I should be doing?”

Take notes. We can do better.

by Dwayne Phillips

Sometimes we hold popular ceremonies without thought. Doing just about anything without thought can be fraught with peril.

There are many popular ceremonies among those of use who build systems. One of those is the daily standup meeting. I could go on with a long list of these.

Are we using these activities wisely or simply because a wise person once advocated them? Oh, that. Hmm. Well, I think someone told us we had to do this to fulfill something or other. So they must be good, right?

There is a point to repeating an action that at first doesn’t seem worth the resources. After a while, we learn why we were eating broccoli or brushing our teeth. It comes to us eventually.

There is also a point where repeating a popular ceremony is just a show. “Look, we do this and that. We must be good (in one way or another).”

Actions without thought are fraught with peril. Let’s think. Let’s ask someone who has seen the benefit of ceremonies to advise us. We can do better.

by Dwayne Phillips

Should we be having this meeting? Here is another test that would eliminate many meetings.

Should we be having this meeting? Should all of us be sitting around a table or standing in a circle (stand up meetings are supposed to be short and necessary, right?)?

Here is one type of meeting that should never occur:

A 45-minute staff meeting in which the designated leader blabbs about how miserable his life is all the while hoping the rest of us will be sympathetic.

Sigh. Yes, I have attended thousands of these. No, none of them were necessary.

The designated leader is “above” everyone else in the room. Everyone else feels pressure to agree with the designated leader. After all, the designated leader can say bad things about us on that day when salary increases are discussed.

The designated leader has a captive audience. Here comes the misery and woe. Grin and bear it. This will all be over after the designated hour has elapsed.

This fails yet another meeting test. Let’s do better.

by Dwayne Phillips

One of the reasons to use these chattering bot word generators is simply to stop wasting time.

A typist is a professional who specializes in accurately and efficiently converting information into digital format. This may involve transcribing handwritten notes, audio recordings, or printed documents into electronic files. They also possess strong data entry skills, proficiently inputting information into various computer systems. Additionally, typists may be responsible for formatting and preparing documents such as letters, reports, and presentations, ensuring accuracy in spelling, grammar, and punctuation.—Google’s Gemini wrote this

The above is a pretty good description of a typist. That is a worthy profession. Are you, however, paying your scientists, lawyers, butchers, bakers, and candlestick makers to be typists? Nope. We want them thinking, butchering, baking, and making candlesticks.

Prompt, copy, paste, edit (and continue editing). Let the AI thing spit out the hundred words and do all the typing. Let the person do the thinking.

Of course we can abuse and misuse this notion. Still, we are paying you to think, not to be a typist clacking away on the keyboard. Let’s do better.

by Dwayne Phillips

Analyzing the gap between what we have and what we need is a good practice. Beware, however, that it doesn’t stop people from thinking and focus them on the same old thing.

“Gap analysis is a systematic method used to identify the differences between an organization’s current state and its desired future state. By comparing the “as-is” situation with the “to-be” situation, organizations can pinpoint areas for improvement, such as performance gaps, process inefficiencies, or resource deficiencies. This analysis helps prioritize actions, allocate resources effectively, and develop strategies to bridge the gap and achieve desired goals.”—standard description of gap analysis provided by some chattering bot.

Okay, it is often good to analyze the gap between what we have and what we need.

CAUTION: gap analysis often focuses on what we have and how to extend what we have. Notice the focus on “what we have.” We are spending a lot of time studying our current situation and our current capabilities.

What about something new? What about something completely different? Gap analysis does not address these questions. Sure, we can address these “What about” questions later. Do we have “later?” Have we consumed all our resources on gap analysis? Are our brains consumed with the current world?

Beware of the focus of gap analysis when analyzing gaps. Allocate resources for something completely different. We can do better.

by Dwayne Phillips

Often, with the best of intentions, groups of people writing something add needless adjective and adverbs.

There is a group of persons. They are writing directions, a memo, something important or seemingly so.

Someone, earnestly with the best of intentions, suggests, “We should change ‘calculate performance’ to ‘carefully calculate detailed performance.'”

Just add one adjective and one more adverb so that the reader understands how important this is and does a really good job with it.

One: Everyone in this place understands the importance. Everyone is this place does a good job. If they don’t, they shouldn’t be here and we shouldn’t be assigning them work.

Two: extra words don’t add meaning to a document. The opposite occurs. People skim longer documents and read shorter ones.

Strunk and White advised to omit needless words. Many writing teachers since have advocated nouns and verbs over adjectives and adverbs. Still, well-meaning people toss them in like adding sugar to a peach pie. Needless.

by Dwayne Phillips

Sometimes the better type of improvement is when all the other people improve. That tends to help me improve, too.

This is about working with others in a manner that they become smarter and better. Some would describe this as leadership, but often I think of leadership dedicated to the designated leader like the team leader or department head or CEO or some job like that. Instead, this is about doing little things everyday that cause others to do smarter things and do them better.

One example: I would walk around everyday to check on everyone on the things they were doing. Someone else starting walking around with me. They learned what everyone was doing and, more importantly, who everyone else was. This other person had improved their ability. That improvement made me and everyone else more capable.

Another example: I posted a large diagram of our information system on a wall next to the coffee pot—a common gathering place. Little by little, people learned of the available resources. Little by little, people corrected the diagram by writing on it and showing me my mistakes. We all became smarter. We all improved. I improved at the same time as the other persons improved. That wasn’t “leadership,” it was something else. I will let others find a good word for it.

In both cases, learning occurred. No one was a formal teacher, but the situation allowed some people to teach on some occasions and learn during all occasions. Creating those situations isn’t easy, but it is possible and likely with some effort and good intentions. Find those situations. We can do better.

by Dwayne Phillips

A problem with fact checking is that people write so poorly these days we cannot find the facts in seemingly factual statements.

Fact checking and the absence or removal of fact checking has been in the news recently. Some society media outlets have removed fact checking and such for something else called “moderation.”

Anyways, there are some inconvenient aspects to fact checking. One is simply that stuff is written so poorly we cannot find the facts to check. Oh, there is the basic, “Water boils at 37°F.” Aha! Fact checking shows that to be misinformation (a more mysterious way of saying “incorrect” or just plain “wrong”).

Now consider, “It is reported that schooling from home during the pandemic caused poorer scores on standardized tests.”

Gosh, it sounds like there are some facts in there that we could check, but I’m not sure. Someone reported a drop in scores. What scores? How do they link the pandemic to those scores? Who analyzed this? There is passive voice, there is some vague notion of attending school, “the pandemic” is mentioned but without dates, this all occurred somewhere but that isn’t mentioned, and what is poorer? Did scores fall 0.1% or 10.1% or what? What scores? What tests?

I find the poor writing of the second example to be far more prevalent than the crisp and factual writing of the first example.

Now, do a fact check on the above sentence. Gosh. This falls apart quickly. And gosh, that prior sentence cannot be fact checked either.

by Dwayne Phillips

There are times when we do some things quietly to minimize the hurt. We should, however, decide whose hurt we are minimizing.

Someone has made too many mistakes. We are dismissing the mistake maker. Let’s do it quietly to minimize the embarrassment and hurt of the mistake maker.

Well, there is no “we” or “us” here. It is ME. I am dismissing the mistake maker. Am I minimizing the embarrassment and hurt of the mistake maker or the embarrassment and hurt of me?

And what about everyone else here? What will they hear and see? What will they take in? How will they react? What about their embarrassment and hurt? This isn’t easy. This isn’t supposed to be easy.

Yes, “we” want to hurt folks less, but which folks? Me, the mistake maker, or everyone here?
Sometimes some hurt is inevitable and necessary. Let’s be careful and let’s do better.

by Dwayne Phillips

We can’t have both facts and adjectives. Can we?

Facts are facts. It is 27° F outside.

Adjectives are, well sort of fuzzy. It is cold outside. (Cold to whom? Cold compared to what?)

“The fact is, they were aggressive.” Oops. “Aggressive” is an adjective.

“The fact is, he is tall.” Well, “tall” is an adjective, but 98.6% of the world considers someone who is seven feet tall to be, well, you know “tall.”

Engineering specifications should be facts that are measurable and testable. Engineers should express the goals of a system with adjectives like, “happy users” and “easy to use.”

Good grief; this is confusing. “Confusing” is an adjective. Good grief. I think “good grief” is all adjectives as well.

This gives me a headache. Oops. Can’t measure a headache. Is a headache a fact or an adjective?

Why can’t this be simpler? (yet another adjective) This requires work and effort and caring to find facts and use adjectives when they are appropriate. This is our task. Let’s do better.