Working Up

by Dwayne Phillips

This is dangerous – I am splitting a blog post into two parts. Hang in there with me.

People are not always logical. That bothers logical engineers like me to no end. There is a mathematical and logical method to prove the non-logical behavior of people. That math helps me understand the how and why of the way people behave and how I can behave with them.

Part 1 of this blog post discusses the math and logic. Part 2 of this blog post discusses how people reflect this.

This is all based on something called implication. Implication basically states that if we accept something that is FALSE, we can prove anything. Yikes.

Below is the truth table for implication: (the symbols “A => B” is read “A implies B”)

Case …… A …… B …… A => B

0          false     false     true

1          false     true      true

2          true      false     false

3          true      true      true

Start with Case 3 as it is simple. Let A be the statement “1=1” which is TRUE. Let B be the statement “3=3” which is also TRUE. In math, we can prove that “1=1” implies “3=3”, i.e. A=>B is TRUE. Simply multiply both sides of “1=1” by 3 and we have “3=3”.

Next to Case 2. Let A be the statement “1=1”  which is TRUE. Let B be the statement “2=3” which is FALSE. In math, we can prove that “1=1” does not imply “2=3”, i,e, A=>B is FALSE.

Next to Case 1. Let A be the statement “1=2” which is FALSE. Let B be the statement “3=3” which is TRUE. We don’t have to go to math for any proofs because no matter how often or loudly we proclaim that “1=2”, we know that “3=3”. Hence, A=>B is TRUE.

Now to crazy Case 0 – the one that predicts human illogical behavior. Let A be the statement “1=2” which is FALSE. Let B be the statement “2=3” which is also FALSE. Using math, I can now prove that “2=3”, so A=>B is TRUE.

Here is the proof:

Statement A says that ———————– 1 = 2

Add 1 to both sides of the above and we have — 2 = 3

A simple, one-step proof that “2=3”. See, a logical proof that validates illogical human behavior.

If I accept something that I know is FALSE, I can prove anything else that I know is FALSE

Come back for Part 2 in which implication allows me to prove all sorts of nonsense.

by Dwayne Phillips

I like uniformity. Expectations are met, there are few surprises, and yes at times it is boring. The boring parts are become more prevalent. I could use a little more variety and more choice these days.

When I was a kid I discovered K-Mart. It was wonderful. It didn’t matter which K-Mart store I entered in my home town or in other towns. The sporting goods were in the same place, the pets were in the same place, and the toys were in the same place. That was neat.

Okay, I was just a kid and I had noticed the charm of the national chain business. Burger King had the same concept – the same layout, the same menu. McDonald’s, Kentucky Fried Chicken – all the same. Uniformity, consistency, all soothing concepts to me.

Local color? Variety? Not really important to me as a kid. Give me the security of knowing where to find things. There was variety out there. There were plenty of locally owned stores, hamburger places, pizza places, and the like. I guess I didn’t notice them because they were still the norm, not the exception.

Today we are upside down from my childhood. In Reston, Virginia the only restaurants that are not national chains are Chinese fast food places. All the stores are national chains. I can shop them here, San Jose, California or Melbourne, Florida. All the same. Perfect uniformity, no variety, no choice.

I guess most people prefer what I preferred as a kid. Look at government. Most Americans want the Federal government to make all services the same regardless of state. National norms for education, health care – no variety, no choice.

I am also an engineer – a designer of sorts. MS Windows, Apple OS X, the various Linux desktops. All use uniform WIMP interfaces (Windows, Icons, Menu, Pointing device). No variety, no choice.

Apple broke the uniformity with the iPod and its user interface. Everyone else copied that, and we are back to no variety, no choice.

Please, some engineer out their – design something different. Introduce variety and choice back into our lives.

by Dwayne Phillips

I work with volunteer groups and have done so since I was a teenager. Volunteers are precious resources, but are often difficult colleagues who quarrel. Why? These people are dedicated to a common cause. What is the problem?

I believe half of one reason is the role of preferences.

Preferences come in many forms. The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator is one measure of preference. The StrengthsFinder is a similar one. Other types of preferences are an Engineer’s Dilemma, “I would rather solve a problem, any problem, than try to discover what the real problem is,” and an Analyst’s Dilemma, “I would rather discover what the problem is and then move onto something else.”

The other half of one reason is the nature of volunteering.

When I volunteer, I have decided to apply my free time to something. I have already spent eight or more hours of the day at my paying job doing what other people want me to do. I am ready to rest, and part of rest is doing what I want to do – what I prefer to do.

When I put these two half reasons together, I conclude that:

Personal preferences show themselves more in volunteer organizations than in paying organizations.

Volunteers show their preferences often and with vigor. My preferences butt against those of the volunteer standing next to me. Calls for, “Please, bear with us here and quiet your (introversion, extroversion, solution, analysis, fill-in-the-blank)” bounce off me. “I am here on my own time and I will be what I prefer to be. If you don’t like it, I will go home.”

I accept volunteers preferring their preferences.

I hope that organizers of volunteer organizations understand this. Please, take extra heed of the different preferences of different persons. Mix preferences when forming volunteer teams as homogeneous teams rarely accomplish anything. Tell the teams why you composed the groups with a mixture. Butting heads will happen, so don’t be surprised, and don’t hammer yourself when it happens.

by Dwayne Phillips

This should be fun, right? A billion dollars to spend on technology to stimulate the economy. I mean, the new Administration is proposing spending $37Billion in 18 months on technology.

Let’s do some calculations on a napkin (I am literally doing that here at the table).

• $1Million hires four technically skilled people for 12 months (that sounds like a lot per person, but I have done this and given all the overhead of government contracts, this is what it costs).
• Let’s spread the $1Million over 18 months. This means that we can only hire just under three technically skilled people. Let’s round that up to three people.
• $1Billion is 1,000 times $1Million. We can hire 3,000 technically skilled people for 18 months.
• The cost of computing and communications hardware is lost in round off errors.

Now we have 3,000 techies to work for 18 months.

• Someone has to manage these people. Let’s be really aggressive and have one manager manage ten people.
• That gives us 300 managers and only 2,700 techies working.

Someone in the government has to over see the spending of this money.

• A well-qualified government team of two people can over see the spending of $50Million in 18 months.
• I have done this job, so believe me this is about the limit. The average government employee can only over see the spending of $10Million in this period of time. I am assuming the best case.
• We need 20 teams of two government employees to over see the money being spent. That is 40 people. The cost of these people is higher than the cost of the techies above.

Now we are down to maybe 2,500 techies working for 18 months.

Well, they really won’t be working 18 months.

• It will take the government at least six months to write and sign the contracts. Again, that is best case. Worst case is 12 months to write and sign the contracts. We use the Federal Acquisition Regulations so we won’t waste the money.
• Let’s go half way between the best and worst cases and say it takes nine months for the work to go under contract.
• Maybe half of the techies will sit twiddling their thumbs while the contracts are in work, so perhaps a third of the $1Billion is spent on doing nothing.

Let’s multiply all this by 37 because we are going to spend $37Billion, not $1Billion.

Ouch.

And one more thing – and this is the hardest thing. Those 40 well-qualified government employees needed to over see the contracts (1,480 if we spend $37Billion) – they don’t exist. They are not sitting on the sidelines waiting for the money to come. We have to find them, hire them, train them, and give them instant expertise that only comes from experience. We can chant “yes we can” forever, but that won’t do these tasks.

Most Federal agencies have never attempted to spend this much money in this short period of time. They don’t have this expertise. Expect at least 50% waste of the money.

My suggestion for a billion dollars? At an average of $25,000 to educate a person in computer science or engineering for one year, $100,000 will produce a BS degree’d American. A $1Billion will produce 10,000 BS degree’d Americans. That is what I would do with the money. Knowledge is something no one can take away from you.

by Dwayne Phillips

One management method doesn’t fit all size projects. It seems that while some few practices work in all cases and some practices work in no cases, there are many practices that work in only one or two cases. This isn’t news to most readers, but there is a way to tell when our practices should change.
Methods should change when the number of people on the project change. Okay, this still isn’t news. When should methods change? What are the breakpoints?

One heuristic for the breakpoints is using the number 3 raised to its powers. I learned this from [Weinberg]. The breakpoints are:

1, 3, 9, 27, 81, 243, …

These numbers aren’t exact breakpoints, but they are close enough and since they are powers of 3, they are easy to remember. Moving from one size project team to another (say from 3 to 9 or  from 27 to 81) breaks most management methods. The methods that worked at one level don’t usually work at the next. Jumping two levels, e.g. from 9 to 81, breaks almost all the working methods.

There are various ways that the different size levels manifest themselves. In this paper, I will only discuss one – the  communication patterns (also from [Weinberg]).
The communication patterns can be illustrated as follows:

—-
# of people – communication pattern
1 – self-knowledge
3 – knowledge of intimates (like spouse and children)
9 – knowledge of teammates (we may not know their intimates, but we know “about” their intimates)
27 – we know their names, but not their birthdays or where they live or who they love
81 – we recognize each of them as belonging to this organization, but we don’t know all their names
243 – many of them are strangers, most of them, in fact
—-

In the 1-person project, I know myself and what I am doing. This is simple enough.  I’m not concerned about anyone else on the project and  how I communicate with them.

In the 3-person project, I know the other two people quite well. I know the names of the people with whom they have intimate relationships like their spouse and children. We communicate well with one another because we “almost” know what one another is thinking.

In the 9-person project, I know the other eight people well. I know if each person is married or not and has children  or not, but I don’t know the names of these  spouses and children. We communicate well with few words.

In the 27-person project, I know the first and last names of everyone on the project. That, however, is it. I may know three or four of them quite well,  but the rest are really strangers to me. Communication is slow as I have to explain everything with almost exact terms. We don’t have a common slang or figures of speech.

In the 81-person project, I recognize people’s faces. I would know it if a stranger wandered into the offices. The people on my sub-team are familiar to me. We communicate well, but the rest of the people are strangers. We spend much of our meetings introducing one another. At least we should spend time introducing one another. Otherwise we seem to have a lot of misunderstandings that  cause mistakes and wasteful rework.

On larger teams – well, those really aren’t teams. Most of the faces in the group are recognizable, but I know the names of only a few. I am uncomfortable when the whole group gathers. I am introverted as are most people in the technical fields, so most of us share this  discomfort. A common question when the whole group gathers is,  “Can I go back to my cubicle now?”

Some people struggle terribly when they lose the intimacy of going  from 3 to 81 people. The struggle is because while they like the work they love the people. Being “techies,” they may not realize or will not admit that they love the people. They may not realize what has happened when the intimacy is gone. They know something is missing,  but cannot identify it. The project just seems to be “going to hell in a hand basket” or something.

For example, a couple of years ago my organization was  doing some proof-of-concept work with a contractor. There were about ten people involved in the work (three or four  in my group and six or seven from the contractor). The proof-of-concept work succeeded wildly, and management funded a large project to take advantage of the new technology in a full-scale development project.

The number of people involved changed. We still had three or four people in my group, but the contractor’s cadre grew quickly to 60, then 70, and  finally 90 people. We jumped two levels in the 3-to-the-power-of chart (9 to 81).

The communication pattern changed drastically. One person in my group – call him Tom (not his real name) was struck particularly hard by the change. Tom would sit in our group’s meetings and complain about the  drop in service from the contractor.

“Something is wrong with Susan (a counterpart at the contractor),” Tom lamented, “She used to answer the phone before the second ring. Now I always get her answering machine, and sometimes she doesn’t call back until the next day. By then I am away from my desk and we play telephone tag.”

Susan was still hard at work, but the communication pattern in her office had changed. She now met with groups of people to ensure that everyone knew what they were supposed to be doing. She no longer sat at her desk all day ready to answer the phone.

Tom had lost the close attention of a colleague via the quick phone call. E-mail and other asynchronous communication  worked much better in the new project, but Tom didn’t realize that and didn’t want to change. He longed for a return to close attention. (See Footnote)

Changes in the size of the project are common. You may work with teams that are the same size all the time; I don’t. At this time, I work with project teams of 100, 50, 20, 5, 2, and 1. I am in constant flux and until I realized what was happening I was in constant confusion. At least now, I better understand what is happening to and around me. The communication patterns in these different projects with different team sizes differ. I could try to force one pattern on all the sizes. The result, however, would only be frustration and failure. Instead, I adapt to the communication pattern that fits the team size. The result is less stress, more success, and more enjoyment.

I urge fellow project managers and team members to try three things:

• (1) draw upon your good experiences with teams,
• (2) understand the size of your current team, and
• (3) think about what communication pattern fits.

Try to recall good experiences with teams on past projects. What worked for you? What did you enjoy? How many people were on that project? Where was your team on the communications pattern example given earlier? Was your experience similar to the relationships given in that example?

Examine your current team and the current project. How many people are on your team? Are you in the same power-of-3 as you were on the earlier,  enjoyable project? What communication pattern are you trying to use on the current project? How is it working?

Think. Are you trying the same communication pattern you used on that earlier project? How is it working? How do you feel? What might work better? What might improve how you feel?

I sat in a meeting for a new project yesterday. Four of us worked together to initiate a product that will allow  several hundred people spread around the world to communicate about requirements. Four people communicating about how several hundred people will communicate; that jumps several powers of 3. At first, we were trying to design a product that would have people communicate the same way the four of us around a single table were communicating. After a few moments, we saw that this wish would create frustration among the hundreds of people instead of closeness.

We settled on using different approaches for the different situations. I think that was a wise choice.

Reference:

[Weinberg] Weinberg, Gerald “Jerry” M.,  personal conversation and e-mail exchange, www.geraldmweinberg.com.

Footnote:
This project is an example of how success may lead to failure. The proof-of-concept project succeeded. This spurred an avalanche of funds and an exponential growth in the number of people involved. Had most of us not changed our patterns of communication, the large development project would have failed. Success (on the proof-of-concept) would have led to failure  (on the development).

Here is an update on Michael Arrington’s attempt to build a simple, inexpensive, web-browing tablet computer. One issue I see is that he is learning that it may cost $299 to build this “simple” computer. We can buy fully-functional portable computers for that price. Once again, the general purpose computer makers have bypassed someone trying to make a special-purpose computer. I have seen this happen again and again for over 25 years.

Back in the 1980s (please stay with me as I won’t tell you how I walked through snow in Louisiana to go to school), I was researching  computing architectures for image processing. I saw this same pattern then.

1. People drew the optimum architecture for a computer to perform image processing (e.g. PhotoShop) operations.
2. These people then went about building these computers.
3. The optimum architectures were realized.
4. Problem: by the time the paper design became a functioning computer, you could buy a computer than performed the image processing much faster.
5. The from-the-store computer cost about 1/1000th the amount of the optimum architecture.

Those darned commercial processor makers like Intel, AMD, Motorola, and others just wouldn’t cooperate with the optimum architecture architects.

Patience with the commercial processor makers always won. The story doesn’t seem to have changed any today. Those commercial companies have lots of money and lots of smart people working around the clock. It is tough to beat that.

Lesson (sometimes) Learned: Be patient. Wait for the commercial machine to do what you want to do.

I write in a journal almost everyday. I started doing this about eight years ago at the urging or Jerry Weinberg. I was about to attend a writer’s workshop led by Weinberg. He sent out an email telling the attendees several things that we might do to  prepare. Journal writing was one of the things.

I had read about journal writing years earlier in Weinberg’s book Becoming a Technical Leader. I had tried journal writing in 1993. I stuck with it a couple of weeks, then … well you know, it just sort of went away.

In his book, Weinberg urges journal writing on those of us who want to become effective managers. One thing that helps a manager is being aware of ourselves. The journal writing is a tool that helps self-awareness. It is also a test of motivation. If I am unwilling to spend five minutes a day writing in a journal, I am probably not willing to follow any other advice that Weinberg or anyone else provides.

In 1993, I wasn’t willing to spend five minutes a day to change myself. In 2000, I was.

Why Journal? I journal for selfish reasons. Writing in a journal helps me to understand problems I am facing. Five or six times a year I find the solution to vexing situations while writing in my journal. There is something about the time it takes to physically write words on paper and the thoughts I think during that time. Answers come to me.

Just try to stop me from writing in a journal.

What goes in a journal? Anything you want to put in it. Yes, and that stuff as well. And those other things you think about, too.

No one reads my journals except me. Even my wife doesn’t read them. Sometimes I will share a piece here and there with her and others, but only what I want to share.

I record: events, people, to do lists, priorities, hopes and wishes, and feelings about such.

Why do most of us hate to journal? What comes to mind when you hear the words, “Dear Diary”? I want to puke. Many people had bad experiences in childhood with diaries that were supposed to be secret, but someone read them and, well, you know.

And then there is the writing. “I don’t write well.” “I can’t write.” “My handwriting is bad.”

No one cares about that. Scribble, sketch, doodle, make scratches, only use bullets and not complete sentences. It is your journal, you mark it the way you want. You cannot “do it wrong.”

I end with Weinberg’s words from his book:

Starting now, and continuing for three months, spend five minutes each day writing in a personal journal.

Pause now, get a piece of paper, and write down your initial reaction (to the journal assignment). This reaction is an important part of the test. Not only that, but what you wrote on that piece of paper is your first journal entry. If you didn’t write it, you’re already in trouble, but you’re in good company.

by Dwayne Phillips

Newspapers are dying. They are being replaced by the Internet. The story goes on and on.

But why? Newsprint is easier to read for many of us. I always found the big page format clumsy to hold and fold and keep straight, but it was print and I could take it anywhere.

But why? Newspapers like the New York Times and Washington Post served the public. Their size and financial resources allowed them to put reporters in cities around the globe to let us know what was happening – to know the news.

But why? I trace their failure to bad writing. News stories should report the factual, objective news. Editorials give opinion.

In Freshman English those many years ago, the professor stressed the difference between fact and opinion, objective and subjective, news and editorial, observation and judgment.

Let’s take a newspaper story from today. This one is from the Washington Post about the man nominated to be the Secretary of the Treasury – Timothy F. Geithner. Let’s read the first clause of the first sentence of the report:

Timothy F. Geithner, the man tapped to lead the nation out of the greatest economic crisis in decades

Note the opinion: “the greatest economic crisis in decades…” Why is our current situation a “crisis” (a short-term terrible event fraught with peril)?  Why is our current situation “the greatest?” How does this reporter measure the economy? The opinion sets the tone for the report.

Go to the first sentence of the second paragraph:

As Treasury Secretary, Geithner would be tasked with directing a mammoth rescue of the nation’s economy.

Note the opinion: “a mammoth rescue.” How does the reporter conclude that the economy needs a “rescue” let alone a “mammoth” one. Would it suffice to say that the Treasury Secretary would manage and direct the Department of the Treasure? Perhaps such is not as interesting to this reporter.

But that is the point: Report the news, not what is interesting to the reporter.

This is only one story from one newspaper selected on one day. I could have picked any other story from any other newspaper on any other day.

The greatest harm I see in all this confusion of fact and opinion is the spread of such into daily conversation. Opinion creeps into conversation and comes across as judgment. We all loved to be judged daily, don’t we. NOT!

See Esther Derby’s post here. Note in the second half of her post how she illustrates the simple yet profound difference between judgment (“you were pounding the table” (you idiot)) and observation (“I saw your closed hand rise in the air and come down on the table. Did you observe that?”).

I cringe when I hear judgment in conversation instead of observation. I am not surprised at the reactions to such judgment. It hurts people and the tasks they try to accomplish. But why shouldn’t our conversations be full of judgment? The media (newspapers, magazines, radio, television) are full of such. People have adopted what they see and hear.

A terrible shame – in my opinion.

by Dwayne Phillips

With the presidential inauguration a week away, there is much chatter on the Internet about Barack Obama being allowed to have a Blackberry when he is president. The issue is of course SECURITY.

Any competent intelligence service can eavesdrop on a cell phone.

Can we make a secure Blackberry or iPhone or any other SmartPhone? Of course we can. It is a simple matter or engineering. The cost might surprise taxpayers. There are a host of cleared companies in America who could do this job – minimum price $5 million. Spread the cost across 1,000 units – $5,000 each.

What you have to do: put some encryption chips in the SmartPhone, shield it so that the as-yet-to-be-encrypted data doesn’t radiate. There you have the technology.

But the technology is only a small issue in this.

(1) Where can the user be while talking about classified issues? The classic answer is in a secured location. And if you are in a secured location, why not just use the secure phone sitting on the desk? The user could talk quietly and ensure that no one in the room can hear him. Well, sort of.

(2) Where can the user go with a classified information storage item in his pocket? The classic answer is again a secured location, but that defeats the purpose of a mobile device.

Point (2) is the killer in all this. What if Obama loses his SmartPhone? What if someone steals it? What if someone defeats the protection technologies? The “what ifs” go on forever, and security experts love to throw the “what ifs” at people.

Once again, the whole thing comes down to physical security and trust of the person. Okay, we trust Obama, after all he is the President and by the way he is surrounded by Secret Service 24 hours a day. Theft and loss risks go away. What about the other 999 people receiving the secure SmartPhones? They don’t have the benefit of an entourage. Do we trust them?

So, we spend $5 million and hand out one Blackberry to Obama. The taxpayers will go for that one, right? Maybe Obama can use the royalties from one of his books to buy his own secure Blackberry. I haven’t heard that one suggested anywhere, but I think it is the best solution.

Welcome to the Working Up blog. See the about page for information.