Working Up

by Dwayne Phillips

For some reason, we often run away from the words that we want most to convey.

I work with persons who are trying to write. They show me their draft, we talk, we walk through the words, and I ask questions. The questions usually lead to grimaces and twisted expressions, struggled breathing, quick exhales, and the like.

I know the line of questioning works when the other person says something like,

• What I’m trying to say is…
• What I’m trying to get across is…
• I want them to know…

“Great!” I tell them. “Write those words.”

Such from me usually leads to, “but, if I did that…” If the writer wrote what she was trying to say, the reader would know what the writer wanted them to know.

Somehow, that basic concept breaks some rule that the frustrated writer was taught at an impressionable age. Someone once declared that it was best to lead the reader around in circles with hints and riddles instead of clearly and briefly stating what it was the writer wanted to state.

Folks, stop listening to whatever that person told you. Write what you are trying to say (or is that “write what you are trying to write” or something?). Say what you are trying to say. Write what you want the reader to know. Be clear and brief.

If you are writing a mystery novel, okay, don’t state the name of the culprit on the first page. Go around in circles with little clues and hints and riddles.

Otherwise, write what you are trying to say. Write those words.

by Dwayne Phillips

Win-win situations mean that both parties win. Great! There are, however, losers as well.

We love win-win situations. Both parties in the situation leave better than they were before. Who wouldn’t like that? The loser wouldn’t.

But both parties are better. What loser? Of course there is a “loser.” Of course there is someone standing in the room who does not “win” with the two winners. Perhaps the loser stays the same; perhaps the loser becomes worse. Nevertheless, there are others nearby who do not win with the winners.

Huh? Perhaps this happens so often that we don’t notice. The main cause is that that other person in the room isn’t as involved as the two winners. The other person’s concerns and desires are not in the conversation. Hence, that other person doesn’t “win.”

Well, “Speak up. Get involved. Get in the game. Don’t sit on the sidelines.” Of course those cliches make since, but that doesn’t mean they occur.

Involved in a win-win situation? Please take a few moments to scan the room and find other persons who are present. How will the win-win affect them? Are you interested enough to bring them along? We should be.

by Dwayne Phillips

In order to move on with other matter, from time to time we accept approximations and use them. That is fine as long as we acknowledge such.

Water boils at 212° F. Well, sort of. There have been many experiments performed on various things we call “water.” When is “water” really “water” and really not? There are different degrees of purity of “water” and each has an average boiling point. And, after all, what is the definition of “boiling?” Sigh. This becomes complicated. I thought we had settled on this.

The temperature of a healthy person is 98.6° F. Well, if you thought the temperature of boiling water was complicated, it is nothing compared to this one. This goes back a century to experiments done here and there on these folks and those folks and the thermometers weren’t that good, and … Sigh. This is really complicated. I thought we had settled on this.

You know, 50% of all marriages end in divorce. Okay, enough approximations. I won’t even begin to shred this accepted approximation. I though we had settled on this.

These are examples of accepted approximations (well, maybe we don’t accept the divorce rate approximation). We could argue and experiment without end on these things. Some folks still make a lifetime career from further experiments and publications and discussions on these. Most of us, however, accept the approximations, use them, and move on.

Until an approximation breaks something we are trying to do. Yes, that happens. The boiling point of water rears its ugly head (does a boiling point have a “head?” Can we call its head “ugly?”) and we try to understand why our system is breaking.

Oh, we accepted an accepted approximation without much thought. Ooooh, the key phrase “without much thought.” Yikes. That is a killer.

Understand the approximations we are accepting. Do they matter in our system? If yes, think some more to understand how the approximation matters. Ignore the approximation at our peril.

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.