Working Up

by Dwayne Phillips

Should we be using systems engineering on this project? Here is a simple test.

I think systems engineering is useful and brings many benefits. That is why I wrote a short book on the topic. The book is free here.

Should we be using systems engineering on this project? Here is

The Systems Engineering Test:

If two or three persons can keep the entire project in their heads, don’t use systems engineering. Otherwise, use it.

There it is. Pretty simple. Trouble is, must of us most of the time answer, “Yes, we have it all right up here,” when we really don’t. We are smart enough or good enough or something that satisfies our ego so we can skip all that stuff where we ask questions and record things and check things and all that stuff kind of stuff.

As I explain in the book I mentioned earlier, we don’t need many fancy, expensive, difficult-to-learn tools to use systems engineering and delight our customers. The techniques are more important than the tools. Pencil and paper and manila folders work well for most projects.

Use the test. Answer humbly. Proceed. Best wishes.

by Dwayne Phillips

Linear Regression is an old, basic technique to predict the future given the past. It seems that its utility has been forgotten by many.

How did we get here? Why didn’t anyone see this coming?

These are a couple questions I heard recently when groups of persons gathered to discuss … well, big booboos (mistakes) in finance. It seems that incoming funds did not match what was predicted; expenses were what was predicted, and, uh, well, the money ran out.

Why didn’t anyone see this coming? Seems someone forgot about linear regression. This is a technique created in the first decade of the 1800s. You plot a few data points from early in an endeavor. You draw a line that fits those points. You look where that line goes out into the future. The formula for this looks daunting, but calculating it is pretty easy. Excel and other spreadsheets have an easy-to-use function that does this for us. Viola’. Done.

Of course there are many cases in which this simple prediction fails. Things happen. People happen. Times change. Hence, some thought must be applied. Still, this little technique does predict the future pretty well.

Why is it not used? The biggest reason I have observed is that people want to believe that things will work out. Bad news is not welcome. Bad news simply must be incorrect. Things will change for the better.

Question: If we have done such-and-such eight weeks in a row, why will we do differently in the future?

Answer: Well, there are many possible good answers. Those answers require us to change. We don’t like to change and we don’t know how to create change.

Hence, this little, old, simple tool works most of the time. How did we forget about it?

by Dwayne Phillips

When the terrain and the map differ, believe the terrain. It is there in front of us. We ignore this at our peril.

We have a telephone (at least I still do in my home) and a smartphone. We call both of them “phones.” Their names are the same. How we represent them in English is the same. This representation and these words are their descriptions and are similar to a map of a location. The map says they are the same.

We know a smartphone is not just another telephone. Everyone who has ever used both know they are vastly different with vastly different designs and purposes. That is the reality; that is akin to the terrain we see and while hiking or driving. We know a hill from a flat piece of land because we experience it.

In the case of the phone, we trust the terrain and not the map.

In the case of building systems, we often trust the map and not the terrain. We believe what we read and not what we experience. The schedule says we are almost done. We look at the system and see that it will be months before it is done. The spec says the system is fast. Our tests show otherwise. Marketing says the system will sell big. Our test users roll their eyes. Which do we believe?

Believe the terrain, not the map. Ignore this a our peril.

by Dwayne Phillips

We don’t need an expert in this or that to build better systems. We need a desire to learn and a desire to please.

We don’t need a User Experience (UX) person on the team. We don’t need a Customer Experience (CX) expert on the team. We don’t need an XX (fill-in-the-blank Experience) person on the team.

Those teammates would be nice, but are not necessary.

“Tech people” (not sure exactly what they are, but I think I are one) can learn. The great majority of people can learn. What we NEED are people who have a desire to learn. They can learn about user experiences and data, and algorithms, and usage, and this-age, and that-age. And we need people who have a desire to please others. Those folks will find out what others want and learn about those wants and how to fulfill those wants.

What we need are people who are not focused on just one problem to work with other people so that they learn how to make technology other folks can use.

Pollyanna? Pie in the sky? Perhaps. In my experience, people with these desires do just fine. And once we have such people, fill-in-the-blank Experience experts are much more welcome and we listen to them much more and we create systems that show it.

(1) Hire people with desire. (2) Bring in the experts. (3) Do so in that order.

by Dwayne Phillips

We often say things simply because we have heard others say those things. We are an odd lot.

People say that because… they heard other people say that. And the other people said it with great confidence and bravado. Hence, it must be true, right?

“Half of marriages end in divorce.” That isn’t true, but it is stated confidently because we hear it stated confidently and often.

“fill-in-the-blank people aren’t good at fill-in-the-blank.” Unless I am saying, “people under 5 feet tall aren’t good at cleaning light fixtures that are on ten-foot ceilings without a ladder” …well, I am just saying because I heard…

More examples:

• Intuitive people aren’t good at repetitive tasks.
• Persistent people aren’t good at creative tasks.
• Coffee lovers are hyperactive.
• Tea lovers are mellow.
• People say things because they have heard them said confidently and often. (ooops)

The examples are many, and some examples make me more angry than others. And that is all subjective. We are an odd lot.

by Dwayne Phillips

Of course we want to communicate. That is a basic. Nevertheless, here is a small test to measure the actual desire to communicate.

Here is a quick test to measure a person’s desire to communicate to others.

1. Here is a blank piece of paper.
2. Here is a pencil.
3. Write three things (plus or minus two) that you want to communicate to others.
4. Give that piece of paper to someone else.

Can the other person read what you wrote? I mean read every word and every letter? No guessing at a word based on the context of the prior words. You probably didn’t score 100%. Did you spend the time and effort to write clearly?

End of test. Do you really want to communicate to others? Have you gone to the trouble to write clearly?

This is one of the big lessons regarding communication. It is difficult. Communicating well requires effort.

Of course this was a silly little example of a silly little test. Still, what effort did you expend? This was a chance to practice communication. Did you practice hard? Did you practice…well, not at all, just something to do to kill a few minutes.

Practice. Walk up to the counter at a fast food place. Practice. Notice. How does the person behind the counter communicate to you and to their co-workers? How well did they do? What could they have done differently? What could you have done differently? Did you notice what they needed? Did you try to provide that? The questions continue. Do you want to communicate? Do you practice? Do you simply assume it’s all okay?

by Dwayne Phillips

We revisit an old tradeoff that moves to a different dimension, but retains the tradeoff.

In the early 1990s, (yes, I am that old) we had about a dozen different computing systems in a laboratory. On any given day, one of the dozen would be “down” for repair. Too bad, but we functioned as the other 11 work “up” and working.

Then we bought a “super” computer (a super computer being one that is better than an ordinary computer). Persons in the dozen different places shared this super computer. Wonderfulness prevailed.

Then one day…(here it comes), the shared super computer was “down” for repair. Everyone sat twiddling their thumbs. The entire lab was down. No one functioned.

Aha! A tradeoff. Centralized service was great when it worked. Disbursed service meant that most people would be working on any given day. Hmmm.

Well, today, we have redundant or disbursed centralized services. We have beaten the tradeoff! Well, actually the tradeoff remains, but in a different dimension or a different attribute.

We consider national health records. At this time, health records are disbursed among the states, counties, cities, et al in America. Governments don’t share the information. Private companies, however, sell to all these government levels and can collect and share the information. The private companies can centralize the information while having redundant hardware to prevent “down” time.

And the data is SECURE! Right? It is secure, huh? It may be secure, but as folks who study the history of these valuable things will demonstrate, what is valuable and secure today will one day become…uh…shall we say…not secure. See, for example, the treasures buried with dead monarchs in the pyramids.

So we centralize in a new dimension—information. The tradeoff remains. Centralized services vs. disbursed services. Gosh these tradeoffs are a nuisance. If you are a manager of things, please remember this.

by Dwayne Phillips

This is a variation on the question, “What is the difference that makes a difference?” When trying to modify behavior, we must be able to answer the title’s question.

The title of this post is a fundamental science question. You are telling me that factor A is important here. Okay, it seems that factor A is important in many things, so saying it is important here is saying nothing.

When are you going to say something?

This is a variation of “find the difference that makes a difference.”

Our current pandemic is an excellent example of the question. We have been told, “The medically frail should avoid COVID.”

Well, the medically frail should avoid the flu, climbing tall ladders, skateboarding, skydiving, scuba diving, etc. So what is different about COVID? When are you going to tell me something? It is unfortunate, but those advocating the response to COVID that we chose failed to provide that difference in a convincing manner. They expected people to change their behavior “just because I said so.”

So much for the pandemic example. Recall cigarette smoking. Doctors were able to show how cigarette smoking was different from skydiving and other “risky” behaviors. Behavior changed across society. Also consider the example of seat belts in cars. Safety advocates where able to show how outcomes were different when wearing seat belts to when not wearing seat belts. Behavior changed across society.

This is different in this situation.

That is a short statement. That, however, is what changes behavior. Find that differences and state it clearly and briefly (and repeatedly).

by Dwayne Phillips

Have a direction? What did we lose in choosing it? Sorry, we traded something for something else. We lost something.

I am never supposed to write “never” and “always.” And there is always an exception to all rules. Hence, the title of this post.

I have yet to find a perfect solution to any question or any problem. Hence, I write “always” as that covers my experience. Any solution or answer involves trades: I will get this, but not that. Since I like this much more than that, I will choose this solution instead of that solution.

Confused enough by my confusion? Okay. I choose blue coffee cups for the cafeteria. I like blue; some people like red, but since I am choosing, I choose what I like. How about choosing a shipment that includes all the colors of the rainbow? That costs more. I am trading cost for utility. Plus, people will grab the coffee cup in the color they like and eventually will show that I picked an unpopular color. I am choosing my preference over the preference of the crowd. So far, we learn that I like to save money and boost my ego.

Silly example? Maybe. I chose that example. What did I trade off? I could write that example quicker and with less effort. Again, I chose time and effort savings. I lost…well, not sure yet, because I haven’t thought about what I lost.

Trivial? Probably yes. Now consider things of great importance that we sometimes consider. Suppose we have a $10 Billion choice. Now, we should consider the trades. What will this have instead of what that has? We should make a list. We should consider what we are trading away. Are any things on that list things that we should keep? If yes, how can we keep that while still choosing this?

Trade-offs are present. Let’s admit it. Let’s consider what we are forgoing as we choose our direction. Such considerations often keep us from later disaster.

by Dwayne Phillips

Most systems “work” as we intend when enough people want them to. Those people cooperate with the system and one another.

Democracy works because people want it to. There is much freedom in democratic systems. That freedom works because people want it to. People realize the value of the freedom and don’t abuse it. If they stop cooperating and start abusing, the freedom and the democratic system collapses.

Consider driving. There are lines on the roads. There are Stop signs. There are traffic signals. All those things work because we enjoy the mobility that safe driving provides. We “tolerate” stopping and starting per the signs and signals because we value the mobility more than we dislike the frequent inconvenience. Don’t think so? Go to various places on earth where no one heeds any of the signs and signals.

Most of the systems and machines we build work because we want them to work. We cooperate with the machine and the other people because we want the benefits.

Consider, as one counter example, “free speech” on the Internet. There are many persons who are abusing that. They are pushing as far as they can to almost break the trust and destroy the system. Pushing too far, if tolerated, destroys the cooperation and the benefit of the system. That is one reason the Internet and social media and such are having difficulties at this time.

Remove the trust and the system breaks.

It is important to be truthful and trustworthy. Always encourage these attributes with your words and deeds. Please.