Working Up

by Dwayne Phillips

Instead of wiggling around so we can call our efforts “AI,” let’s focus on useful and helpful software.

Over a decade ago (yes, that long), I was working with a graduate student on their writing. They had difficulty describing their research to others. Their work was wonderful.

They had developed a concept and software to demonstrate the concept of how to aid people find safety in a building that was on fire or had other disasters looming. The software was going to save lives using a combination of building plans and the appointment calendars and contact information of people.

Today, we would call this “agentic AI” or some other made-up term that would sell in our AI-infatuated world. Gosh. How about calling it useful and helpful software? How about just calling it something that is useful and helpful and drop all technology terms?

Let’s build things that help persons, whose bodies have failed them but their minds still function to use machines and, interact with the rest of us. Let’s help persons survive disasters. Let’s help persons do many other useful things so that the true character and value of those persons shines through to the rest of us.

Pollyanna? Perhaps, but let’s do better.

by Dwayne Phillips

Ornamental objects are preserved. Practical objects are frayed and discarded. It is easy to confuse the two.

Ever see a coffee pot from the 1940s? Except in old photo collections, I haven’t. Ever see a coffee service made of silver and engraved by a master craftsman? Yes I have. Museums are full of them.

Ornamental objects, like the masterfully engraved silver coffee service, are preserved. Rich folks buy the, set them on the shelf, and have servants routinely dust and polish them. No wonder they last forever. No one uses them.

The basic coffee pot is different. Plain old folks buy them and use them everyday until they are frayed and exhausted. They break from usage and are discarded and replaced. Folks use them all the time.

Sometimes, it is easy to forget why some things from the past are still with us and some are gone. Some things from the past are still with us because no one ever used them. They were made to admire, not use. Things made to use…well, they are gone and usually forgotten.

One day, some of us awaken, see something still with us, and mistakenly decide that since it is still with us we should emulate and use it. Hmm. Is it still here because it is useful or the opposite?

Let’s think about that. Let’s think more about just about everything. Think. Decide. Act. In that order. Let’s not be confused. We can do better.

by Dwayne Phillips

When spending someone else’s money, there are essential things and nice to have things. Focus on the essential.

I am not naive. This topic is in the news and involves politics. That can take it from general management consulting to all sorts of hyperbole and worse. Let’s try to consider something.

As an organization spending someone else’s money, there are essential activities and things that are nice to have. It is easy for folks to say, “Let’s delve into this and delve into that.” And, “I read that it is good for morale to have such and other in the workplace.”

The workplace is present to serve the consumers and customers, not those in the workplace. The workplace should not be a dungeon, but it should not be a hobby either. Time away from the workplace is a different place with different goals and allowances. Let’s not confuse the two.

It is quite easy for an organization to drift from its mission. The passage of time and the growth of the organization make drifting more likely and almost assured.

One day, folks wake up and the stuff they are doing and having in the workplace show up on the front page of the newspaper or where ever it is that people go to read embarrassing things about other people. And, oh boy, how embarrassing it appears.

How did we get here in the hallmarks of embarrassment? One day at a time and one little “nice to have” at a time.

Refocus. What is our purpose? What is critical?

On the other hand, a little drifting can lead to new products and services that delight our consumers and customers. Drift, experiment, think, and choose wisely. And never lose sight of the essential. We can do better. If we are spending public funds, we must do better.

by Dwayne Phillips

Despite temporary angst, we want the tester who has the bad luck of doing something that finds the errors in our computer programs.

A while back, my grandson was writing a program on our kitchen computer. He was writing some type of game where you picked a number and something happened on the screen. My granddaughter tried the game, i.e., she tested it. Note, at the time, both were teenagers, whatever that implies.

My granddaughter picked a number that caused the game to … well, let’s use a technical term … the game crashed and burned.

“Ah,” proclaimed my grandson, “You are an unlucky tester. By luck, you picked the wrong number for this game.” My grandson has a way of explaining failures as the result of someone else’s actions. Note, he is still a teenager, whatever that implies.

I joined the conversation with some quip about wanting to have unlucky testers to help find the problems in a program. Also, perhaps my granddaughter was an excellent instead of an unlucky tester. Chuckles ensued as well as the two of them studied and changed the source code so that the program would run even when facing unlucky people.

I have written computer programs. Much blood, sweat, and tears go into that endeavor. Discovering that all that effort included mistakes is not fun. I have tested computer programs written by others after they poured blood, sweat, and tears into them. They weren’t happy when I showed there were errors in their endeavors. In the end, there always seems to be some sort of end, the program was better after my testing and their angst.

We want unlucky testers. We want someone who walks in, tries something that never occurred to us, and makes the whole thing crash and burn. Computer programs are simulations. All the crashing and burning are simulated as well. Better to have that now than later.

One problem is that now and later don’t remove the angst of having to bleed, sweat, and cry more tears while fixing things found by unlucky testers. Still, we survive and strive to do better.

by Dwayne Phillips

“We have a process we use here” usually means one person declared the process and that process will disappear the day the person leaves.

I have recently encountered organizations where “process is everything.” I hear boasts of, “WE do it this way all the time.”

In my experience of 45 years (yes, I am that old), I have often seen an organization use a process. Then, one day, they trade that process for another one (going to no set process is itself a process), i.e., they forget all about process. A little investigation shows that one person left one day and the process changed the next day.

The process was this person.

This person was “in charge” and declared the process. In most cases, this person was knowledgeable and meant well. The process they declared worked well for the organization. This person worked diligently to ensure that the organization succeeded. This person also credited the organization’s success to THE PROCESS.

Failures were dismissed as “not following the process” or “Our process seems to have a hole in it for that special circumstance. We will adjust the process.”

Some processes work well for some organizations at some places and some times. Just doing whatever works sometimes (just doing whatever is also a process that someone chose).

Following the lead of someone who is knowledgeable and diligent also works well for some organizations at some places and some times. When that someone leaves, things may fall apart for a while or success may continue.

I like process. I like following procedures that work. I don’t like change without thought. I don’t like much of anything that comes without thought. (I guess THINKING is my favorite process.)

Still, I firmly believe that process is often or usually driven by one person. Perhaps the process will continue after the person leaves. Perhaps not.

by Dwayne Phillips

A simple tool for providing feedback to a writer.

“Mary had a little lamb.”

The above five-word phrase can be said at least ten different ways. It can be assigned at least ten different meanings. Which one did the writer intend?

Now we come to providing feedback to a writer. Ask, “Do you mean …?”

If the answer is, “No” three times in a row, we both need to work on how we are writing and how we are reading.

If the answer is, “Yes” three times in a row, we agree and can progress.

For example:

• Do you mean that of all sizes of lambs, Mary’s was small?
• Do you mean that Mary used to have a lamb but no longer has one?
• Do you mean that Mary had one and only one lamb?

Ask honestly and candidly. Seek understanding. Seek clarity. The writer, sensing a lack of understanding, can modify the text accordingly. For example:

• Mary had a choice of many sizes of lambs. She chose a small one.
• Mary owned a lamb last year. She sold it.
• Mary owned many lambs. What distinguished one of the lambs was that it was little.

Oh, that’s what the writer meant. Thank you.

by Dwayne Phillips

Despite cries to the contrary, we want bias. Our individual bias is what makes us individuals. Do we really want everyone to be the same? I doubt it.

“We need to reduce bias,” said someone who meant well but wasn’t thinking things through.

I am biased. I like some things and dislike others. I tend to one type of solution over all others. I go to one coffee shop instead of all others. I eat much more rice than the great majority of Americans with the family name Phillips.

Just about everyone I have ever met is biased. They like this instead of that and go here instead of there.

Our biases make us individuals. If none of us had bias, if we were all the same, we would all be the same. Does anyone want all of us to be the same? I certainly don’t, and I am biased that way.

All this bias can be quite inconvenient at times. I mean, if folks would just see things my way…it would be awful boring and we would all make lots of needless mistakes.

Admit it. We are all biased, and that is a good thing. Let’s deal with it. We can do better.

by Dwayne Phillips

This is a simple, two-word question. It is fundamental if someone is paying for my time. What is all the fuss about?

In the news recently, I find that a new advisor to a new executive asked all the employees to answer the basic question that is the title of this post. This all sounds pretty simple and innocent, but it raised a storm of biblical proportions.

Note: both the new advisor and the new executive in the news are polarizing persons. Many folks don’t like ’em. I am not naive about that. The management practice, however, is sound and is widely practiced.

I have written in the past about this two-word question. Someone pays me money for my time. They are entitled to know what I’m doing with my time. If I don’t want to answer their two-word question, I can quit the paying job.

Perhaps there is something wrong with me in the above beliefs. Perhaps.

Many management consultants provided their opinions on the management practice of asking, “Whatcha’ doin’.” It appears that only the negative views of of this management practice were published. Yes, this management practice can be bad in some circumstances. Yes, most of the time it is a basic that should be practiced. People cannot have other people hiding what they are doing.

This is government. Public employees are paid by the public to do public works publicly. Except for a few cases, when public employees ‘splain whatcha’ doin’, the answers can and should be for public consumption.

Then the management practice moves on to comparisons of “this is what we are doing” to “this is what we are supposed to be doing.” Then comes corrections of course and all that. A postal carrier is supposed to carry mail from the Post Office to the mailbox. If the postal carrier isn’t doing that, well, we need correction. This isn’t rocket science. Mundane? Maybe. It is government service. Generations of families have been supported by it. It is honest work. Let’s keep it honest and public.

by Dwayne Phillips

Want more efficient and more productive government? The solution is simple, but probably won’t be used.

Once every now and then, someone comes along and tries to make government more efficient and more productive. Note: this means more efficient and more productive than it is now. This does not mean truly efficient and truly productive, just better.

We see this now in the news as a new President with new advisors attempts new methods in search of efficiency and productivity. We also see that there are policies in place that create inefficiency and unproductive behavior.

I was an employee of our Federal government for 28 years. I have spent the following 17 years still working around our Federal government. I have seen the good, the bad, and the ugly.

We have rules and rules upon rules inside government to cause behaviors. As a wise person once told me many years ago, “Whenever you find a rule, you can find that it is in place because some persons were trying to cheat.” The rule attempts to stop the cheating by a few persons. The rule also cuts efficiency and productivity by the great majority of persons. The rule brings waste.

So, here is a solution: remove those rules and hire good, smart people.

Good people are ethical. They don’t lie, cheat, or steal. They behave well.

Smart people are smart. They see what needs to be done and they do it quickly and well.

Simple solution that removes all the rules that bring waste.

We won’t use this simple solution. We no longer seem to have a common definition or right and wrong (ethics). We don’t like seem to people who see what needs to be done and do it quickly and well.

Back to the drawing board or something. We can do better.

by Dwayne Phillips

Much of the jargon we use doesn’t make sense. If we didn’t use the nonsense, no one would understand us.

We use jargon. I work in computers, and we are one of the worst offenders of jargon in communication. The jargon is nonsense. If I used real words, however, no one would understand me.

Consider: do you have your computing in the cloud or on premise?

First, we consider cloud computing. Cloud?

Cloud: noun, a visible mass of condensed water vapor floating in the atmosphere, typically high above the ground. OR a state or cause of gloom, suspicion, trouble, or worry.

What is the relation between computers in a data center hundred of miles away and condensed water vapor floating in the atmosphere? I have sought that relation for years and don’t have a clue. And then there is the dark cloud of gloom, suspicion, trouble, or worry. Calling a data center a cloud is closer to gloom, suspicion, trouble, or worry than anything else.

Second, we consider computers on premise.

Premise: noun, a previous statement or proposition from which another is inferred or follows as a conclusion.

People mean premises.

Premises: noun, a house or building, together with its land and outbuildings, occupied by a business or considered in an official context.

For some reason we drop the “s” at the end of the word as we want to save one byte of storage or something.

Cloud, premise: two simple yet common forms of nonsense. Yet we repeat the nonsense. We can do better.