Skip to main content


Showing posts from January, 2018

Is there only ONE "right" triangle?

I've been a fan of Triangle Man for some time... Then the other day... years, and decides later I saw this Hugh Lieber art work. Hugh Lieber And once again I fell for Triangle Man.  And that got me thinking of the 3-4-5 right triangle... When I think of right triangles - it's the one I imagine...  although I spent many years using the classic drafting 30-60 degree triangle. And then this sound track starts in the back of my mind... THEY MIGHT BE GIANTS Particle Man (Tiny Tunes) Lyrics Particle man, particle man Doing the things a particle can What's he like? It's not important Particle man Is he a dot, or is he a speck? When he's underwater does he get wet? Or does the water get him instead? Nobody knows, Particle man Triangle man, Triangle man Triangle man hates particle man They have a fight, Triangle wins Triangle man Universe man, Universe man Size of the entire universe man Usually kind to smaller man Universe man He's

A T-Shaped 21st Century Knowledge Worker

Knowledge workers in the 21st Century must have many areas of deep knowledge, while also be capable of collaboration across multiple other domains with dissimilar T-shaped individuals.  This description of a person is a metaphor.  Compare it to the shape of the "I" in the classic saying there is no "I" in Team. I first read about Scott Ambler's term "Generalizing Specialist" - but it's so hard to remember the proper order of the words... get it backwards and it has an inverted meaning... T-Shaped is easier to remember.  A generalizing specialist is someone who: Has one or more technical specialties (e.g. Java programming , Project Management , Database Administration , ...).  Has at least a general knowledge of software development.  Has at least a general knowledge of the business domain in which they work.  Actively seeks to gain new skills in both their existing specialties as well as in other areas, including both technical

A FAILURE to Communicate

I was working with a failing team some time ago.  I use "failing" to describe the outcome of the team - not the people on the team.  Are you OK with that description? An issue arrose in the stand up - a team member that was to verify the quality of a procedure did so and reported that there were a few records that didn't match expectation in the data set.  Upon inquire the number of records not matching was over 2000.  Most people acknowledged immediately the exaggeration - I could tell by the laughter.  After about 10 minutes of discussing the details of the problem - it appeared the team had a handle on the specific situation. I stopped the discussion and inquired if they could name the impediment.  One team member did a great job of describing the impediment as a _communication gap_ .  Wonderful - I could work with that - the problem had a name and it didn't include anyones Proper Name. "If the problem has a first name; we are going to have a problem

Apple part number 810-0374 is ART

Great artist sign their work. There is one part of the original Macintosh I'd like to frame on the wall. Apple part number 810-0374 - the case. It contains signatures of Macintosh design team in raised human font. Folklore about the Macintosh design team's signing party . Great artist sign their work Are you an artist? I was thinking about this story...  imagine telling it like this. Some years ago, when the computer industry was not yet launched, and might fold on any quarterly earning report on Wall Street, there was an SOB that drove many team members crazy.  This SOB parked a motorcycle along with a piano in the lobby to inspire the designers.  Some people believe this SOB didn't know how to build teams.  Yet he did know how to build products.  And he did build one of the most successful late 20th/21st Century organizations.  Compare it's operation to that of conglomerates it's revenue size and you will see a stark difference.  This unicorn op

Happy New Year! What will you do with 8,760 hours?

Time is something that puzzles me... I tend to "spend" a lot of time thinking about TIME. I don't truly know how to not "spend" time... if you find a good TIME-Bank, with a savings plan... let me know, please. I quickly calculated how much I will spend this year - 8,760 hours.  A few years ago I had a unique opportunity to spend about 8,772 hours while most of you only had the standard year - I spent New Years in New Zealand and got some extra... I think I spent it on the plane flight back to Dallas. Here's a great talk about how we use our time and what we may wish to consider doing with the very very little "free" time we have. The Time You Have (in JellyBeans)

PEZ -or- Why one shouldn't track Scrum Tasks in Hours

I've been called to task - asked why I teach teams to distinguish between Task Hours and some non-denominational non-specific non-absolute unit.  The latest team I guided used PEZ!  In the daily stand up a person might be heard to say: "Yesterday I was working on the code to DisCombobulate the GUID so that we could distinguish customers from guest and the task to peek into the hashed session state was harder than I anticipated - I will need 2 more PEZ to get that done today." Benefits of "Task Points" Because it works and is more fun.  Not a sufficient and rational reason. Because it's a fractal of the concept of Story Points.  Not a practical enough reason. Because it encourages transparency and acknowledges that we are really bad at estimates.  Not sure we wish to propagate that notion. Because Scrum has a value of Openness  and in that spirit can we admit that a team of 7 people doing 50 "hours" of tasks a week is really a poor met