Working Up

by Dwayne Phillips

Each of us has the ability to change something in a direction which we desire.

I guess this post is a pep talk or an admonition to “buck up sissy pants” (I think I heard that phrase on a TV show).

Unhappy with the current situation? I am. Well, things don’t have to be this way. Things could be better (whatever better means to one person). Change them. Yes, I have the power to change things. Perhaps the only thing I can change is my thinking. Perhaps the only thing I can change is my attitude. Well, there are two things I can change right there.

And if I can change my thinking and my attitude, perhaps I can influence the thinking and attitude of one more person. And so on in some sort of geometric progression or whatever.

No, things don’t have to be this way. We can all do something to make things better. Let’s do better.

by Dwayne Phillips

I suppose I am several generations behind in the lingo of my profession. Is it too much to ask people to speak English or at least define their terms?

I read this recently, “Get the architecture right, then the details.”

Hmm, sounds like in that case “architecture” means the “high-level design.”

But “design” is a verb sometimes used as a noun. “Architecture” is a noun, so I guess we design an architecture, maybe?

I’m confused on this. And then we have solutions architects. A solution is a correct response to a problem. Well, I am glad we have people architecting or designing solutions as opposed to designing more problems in response to problems.

I am confused. Perhaps a junior-level recruiter can explain this all to an old man. Please.

by Dwayne Phillips

Stop. Breathe. Think. Now act in a way that leads to what is desired.

Stop. Breathe. Think. Act. In that order.

I think that is the definition of a wise person acting wisely. “Knee jerk reactions” are not in the definition.

A long time ago (in a galaxy far, far away) a wise person told me a true story of one of their adult children who was about to marry. The spouse of this wise person told the adult child, “Don’t marry that person. That is a mistake!” The wise person told the adult child, “I love you. I want the best for you.”

The marriage of the adult child ended quickly and with hatred. Guess whom the adult child looked to for further guidance. Of course it wasn’t the, “I told you so” parent.

The wise person desired the adult child to continue their relationship. The wise person acted in a way that led to that desire. The unwise parent acted in a short-term manner that brought some short-term results. Enough chastising the unwise from some true story in some family’s past.

The same wise-person advice applies to the rest of us—especially those of us who attempt to lead people and manage work. What do we want to happen? How should we act to lead to that desired outcome? Stop. Breathe. Think. Sometimes situations simply push us towards neglecting these steps and this order. We have an emergency, or at least we think we have an emergency that needs a knee-jerk reaction (why do we blame our knees?).

Let’s do better.

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.