I’ve not yet decided what posts to publish here and what posts to publish on Sterk Blanding. My present idea is that I’ll publish most of my English articles here at Thinking inside a Bigger Box and Norwegian language articles at Sterk Blanding. But I can be persuaded to change my mind.

For my Norwegian readers, enjoy my articles on Sterk Blanding:

• Hvordan komme i gang med blogging: Some tips for people who’re considering to write on a blog
• Hemmligheten bak gode spesifikasjoner: How to change your tests from specifying behavior to specify intentions
• “Det var dyrt”-øyeblikket: The sobering moment in my project when both I and my customer realized that the transparency of Scrum meant that we could see how much the project was really costing.
• Hvordan endre en statisk klasse til en dynamisk singleton: A step by step guide to an important strategic level refactoring in legacy systems: Changing static calls to use a singleton that can be mocked.
• Med Ram Yoga: Smidig brukervennlighet: Some practical tips on how to use agile software development and user centric design to complement each other

The first years I was working in this business, I didn’t see any distinction between “the user” and “the customer”. Once I started seeing the distinction, I started to understand that the person who is going to use the system we’re developing is not the person who defines what the system should do and neither of these is usually the person that pays me to develop the system. So I starting distinguishing between the product owner, that is, the customer and the end user. But the product owner often calls the person I call “end user” his “customer”. What’s going on here? Let’s check the dictionary:

CUSTOMER
Main Entry: cus·tom·er
Pronunciation: \ˈkəs-tə-mər\
Function: noun
1: one that purchases a commodity or service
2: an individual usually having some specified distinctive trait

CLIENT
Main Entry: cli·ent
Pronunciation: \ˈklī-ənt\
Function: noun
1: one that is under the protection of another : dependent
2a: a person who engages the professional advice or services of another
2b: customer
2c: a person served by or utilizing the services of a social agency
2d: a computer in a network that uses the services (as access to files or shared peripherals) provided by a server

I’ve seen suppliers approach their work by asking for a specification of a product to deliver and then trying to deliver something to that specification for payment. The mental model is that of a customer going to the grocery story asking for “eight pounds of CRM software”. My experience with organizations with this sort of mindset has always been unsatisfactory.

On the other hand, I’ve seen suppliers approach their work as an agent of the organization that pays them. “Our job is to enable someone else do their job better.” This totally changes the way an organization deals with this relationship. The word “customer” may not be conductive to this sort of thinking. Instead, we should think of ourselves as agents acting on behalf of a client. As an agent, your responsibility is to enable your client. This includes helping your client to find better means of reaching their goal.

By the way, wikipedia defines the word “agent” as “a person who is authorized to act on behalf of another (called the Principal or client) to create a legal relationship with a Third Party”. If the “third party” is the computer, then a good developer is an agent acting on their clients behalf in dealings with the computer software.

Why doesn’t the software industry use the word “client” instead of “customer”?

This Norwegian language article introduces a short two-page guide I’ve written to explain Scrum to people who’ve only just heard of it.

I samarbeid med våre dyktige redaksjonelle medarbeidere på Steria, har jeg forfattet en “3 minutters guide” til Scrum. Denne tar for seg spørsmålene som “hva er egentlig Scrum”.

Dette er Scrum

3-minutterguidene kan lastes ned fra Sterias hjemmesider.

Jeg planlegger å følge opp denne guiden med en guide som beskriver hva som skal til for å faktisk lykkes med Scrum. Har du noen ideer?

Colored ink, paper and makers support team process

When I started my current project I went to pick up sticky notes and marker pens for the taskboard. I grabbed, more or less at random three colors of notes (red, green, yellow), four colors of pens (black, red, blue, green) and five color sticky bookmarks (yellow, green, blue, orange, red). Over the first weeks of the project, we evolved a system that uses combinations of all the colors:

• For tasks that we plan at the start of an iteration, we use the black pen. Tasks that contribute directly to the project goals go on green notes, meetings go on yellow notes and administrative tasks go on red notes. (I’m still tweaking this)
• For tasks that we discover during the iteration, we use the red pen. The color codes for the tasks are the same.
• We don’t write names on tasks. Instead, each of the three team members have three sticky bookmarks of a color (green, blue, orange) that they can place on stuff they work on. We limit the number of bookmarks per person to limit multitasking.
• We don’t have a column for tasks that are to be verified. Instead, we use the yellow sticky bookmarks to mark things that should be verified. The yellow sticky is addressed at latest at the next stand-up meeting. Like with concurrent work, we’ve limited the number of tasks to be verified to three. (So far we’ve never needed more than one.)
• We use the red sticky bookmarks for tasks that are blocked. That is, tasks where the team needs outside help. We’ve limited ourselves to three red bookmarks. When we’d like to place the fourth, we’d rather spend our time following up the current blockers.
• Since we had some spare area on our taskboard, we decided to use this to look for improvements to our process. We believe that improvements shouldn’t wait until the retrospectives. Instead, we want to think of how to get better all the time. We use the green pen for improvements. Impediments that cause extra work or defects go on red notes, things that would make us work better go on green, and neat ideas that would be fun to try go on yellow notes.
• Finally, we have an area for impediments. We haven’t come up with a system for this yet, so we just use arbitrary color notes and pens.

Markers support pair programming

We’re always looking for ways to improve the taskboard further. In particular, I’d like to use the blue pen for something. I’m also not totally happy with the division into different sort of tasks. Finally, I’d like to have a special sort of sticky for things that don’t really take time, but that we need to remember to do, like sending out meeting invitations.

How do you customize your taskboard to our team’s process?

What does your brain look like?

• We were taught to trust information from authorative sources, but we’ve learned to prefer the voices of named individuals. Be personal.
• We were taught to categorize, but we know that searching beats sorting. Don’t do the computer’s work.
• We were taught that information is scarce, but we know that the real problem is too much information, not too little. Avoid producing unneccessary information.
• We were taught that power comes from controlling information, but we know that the greatest threat to information is irrelevancy. Ease up on information security.
• We were taught to create products that everyone would want, but we know that needs are individual. Target the few.
• We were taught to guide our customers, but we know they would rather serve themselves than wait for a sales clerk. Open your tools to your users.
• We were taught to use tools that reside on our computer, but we don’t use the same computer for long and we don’t work alone. We use tools that reside on the web. Be available everywhere.
• We were taught that your value is determined by what you have, but we’ve learned that your value is determined by what you give away. Share your knowledge.
• We were taught to read the instruction manual, but we know we learn by playing with new tools and toys. Support exploration.
• We were taught that good information has a price, but we know that only information that is totally free participate in the network of knowledge. Free your information.
• We were taught to spend our time on useful things, but we don’t bother unless it is also fun. Earn our attention.

If you didn’t already know these things, and you feel you’re living in a world you no longer understand, this is why: You are not a digital native.

A big “thank you” to my colleagues Harald, Trond, Mona, Eli, and Jan Helge for feedback on the draft of this article.

But lately, the question seems to be less and less academic: Google’s Voice Application for the iPhone got rejected and two existing applications (GV Mobile and Voicecentral) were removed from the AppStore! This is an extremely nasty thing to do to the developers.

To make matters worse, Apple is seeking to sue users who jailbreak their phones. Yes, you can actually sue for that!

The latest WFT-Apple moment was the news of the Ninjawords dictionary application which was forced to censor naughty words out of wiktionary.

So far, Apple’s actions have mostly hurt developers. But eventually, when developers on a platform suffer, users suffer as well.

You may think Microsoft is a bloated company and that Steve Ballmer is a weirdo, but when he shouts “Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers” he understands something that Steve Jobs just doesn’t get.

So the iPhone is seeming rather unattractive now. I’m looking forward to what seems to be an Android-filled fall!

This Norwegian language post talks a little about a quick intro to Scrum that I wrote for my employer

Jeg har forfattet en “3-minutters guide” til Scrum. Dette er en to siders lettlest artikkel som publiserer via min arbeidsgiver Steria. Denne har som mål å være tilgjengelig både for tekniske og ikke-tekniske prosjektdeltagere som gjerne vil forstå litt mer om hva Scrum dreier seg om.

Du finner artikkelen på Sterias arkiv over 3-minuttersguider. Du kan ta kontakt dersom du ønsker et eller flere eksemplarer av guiden trykket på solid papir.

Jeg regner med å lage flere iterasjoner av denne guiden, så tips om forbedringer mottas med takk.

Breaking the Spell

“Breaking the Spell” by Daniel Dennett presents avenues of research into these explanation. He does not profess to have the answers to this question, or even the right question. He merely sets out to prove that the questions are important ones and ones that we can hope to gain insight into.

Dennett is a philosopher, and he has explained the role of philosophers with an analogy: A philosopher watching a magician sawing a lady in two offers an explanation: “You see, the magician is not really sawing the lady in two. He merely makes it appear as if he is sawing her in two.” When asked, “so how does he do that”, the philosopher answers “I’m sorry, that’s somebody else’s department.”

This story undersells Dennett and his books, of course. I have been a fan of Dan Dennett for over ten years. His accessible books “Darwin’s Dangerous Idea” and “Consciousness Explained” have radically shaped my understanding of evolution and the brain. “Breaking the Spell” does the same with religion.

So, if religion has a natural explanation, what could this explanation be? Obviously, something in our evolutionary history has made us religious. Does this mean that religion is good for us, or rather, that it helped our ancestors survive? Not necessarily. Dennett shows how certain traits that could’ve been good for us, like susceptibility to the placebo effect and a disposition to interpret events to be caused by an actor, could’ve made the human mind susceptible to other ideas, or memes as well. As long as these ideas don’t cause the “host” fatal damage and they can spread to other “hosts”, such ideas would become widespread, even if they were (moderately) harmful to those who bear them.

This hypothesis is also explored by Dennett in one of his several talks for the TED-conference:

The question for the final part of the book, then, is what effect religion has on it’s adherents and society at large. When does it help us and when does it harm us? Dennett suggests experiments that could further explore this subject, but doesn’t offer definite evidence for any hypothesis.

The weakness of the book is that it spends quite a bit of time excusing itself to hypothetical fundamentalist readers. Even if you believe your religion is true, Dennett points out, you must wonder where all the other religions came from. Even if you believe your religion is true, you must wonder what effect other religions have on society.

I wish the book had spent more time exploring the issue at hand (why religion might exist, what effect it has) and less time excusing the validity of the question. But it’s an enjoyable read and gave plenty of food for thought.

Dennett remains my favorite philosopher author.

Be sure to check out Dennett’s great presentations on the web:

• Dan Dennett: Ants, terrorism, and the awesome power of memes
• Dan Dennett: Cute, sexy, sweet, funny: A 7 minute talk about why, from an evolutionary point of view, we find things cute, sexy, sweet or funny
• Dan Dennett: Can we know our own minds?
• Dan Dennett: A secular, scientific rebuttal to Rick Warren: Dennett gives the superstar pastor of the Saddleback (no, that’s not a code word for something dirty) church a good spanking.

Summer is starting

“Predictably Irrational” is a perfect book for lazy summer days on the beach or, in this case, while enjoying a beer from top of Oslo’s tallest office building.

Dan Ariely is on a bit of a crusade against traditional economics, with it’s idea of rational behavior from everyone in the marketplace. Instead of this (strawman) economics, he uses experiments to explore what he calls “behavioral economics”. The book is focuses particularly on how our behavior often is not at all rational.

The book is enjoyable, and Dan Ariely’s style is easy to digest. However, the free online videos of him talking are even more enjoyable.

Some of my favorite sections:

The Context of Our Character

The experiments that first made me aware of Dan Ariely is those that explore what makes people cheat more and what makes people cheat less. This is the subject of a great TED-talk, titled “Why we think it’s OK to cheat and steal (sometimes)”:

The Cost of Zero Cost

The Cost of Zero Cost talks about how “zero” is a very special price. The experiment: If you let people choose between a good chocolate at 14 cents and a cheap chocolate for free, traditional economics predicts that preferences will be the same in a choice between a 15 cent good chocolate or a 1 cent cheap chocolate. Ariely demonstrates how this is not the case.

The effect of zero cost has been discussed lately by the likes of Seth Godin and Malcolm Gladwell. This particular discussion springs out of Chris Anderson’s recent book Free.

The price of zero has been one of YouTube’s great strengths. However, as Malcolm Gladwell points out, it is also carries a slight downside: YouTube doesn’t make any money.

The Verdict

The book was a pleasant little read, but ultimately, disappointing. Let me explain:

Before I bought the book, I watched all the videos I found about the subject on YouTube. After having seen these, the only area which the book gave me any further insight was that of zero price.

Ironically, the book suffers from Malcolm Gladwell’s skepticism about “Free”: Giving away information for free will give you a lot of attention, but might undercut the reason for people to give you money.

If you want a pleasant read on the beach, “Predictably Irrational” might be for you. If you just want to learn about “behavioral economics”, watch Dan Ariely’s videos instead:

• The mechanics of the ‘awfulness’ of pain and why we cheat
• Why we pick the default and why irrelevant options may influence our decisions (Same talk, given at TED)
• For the whole hour, see Dan Ariely talk at Google

After receiving request to revive my book reviews, I’ve decided to blog about books I read again.

If a known terrorist in police custody knew the whereabouts of a ticking bomb about to explode in a large city, would the use of torture be acceptable? Would it be helpful? I stumbled across Alfred McCoy through fora.tv. The program impressed me so much that I decided to pick up his book A Question of Torture.

In the book, McCoy examines the history of coercive techniques from the fifties until the present. He makes the case that the so-called “few bad apples” in Abu Ghraib in fact were using techniques directly from the CIA’s playbook on torture. These techniques focus on sensory deprivation (such as hooding and prolonged isolation), self-inflicted pain (such as prolonged standing and other “stress positions”), humiliation (such as forced nudity), and sensory disorientation (such as loud music and sleep deprivation) and they do constitute torture.

Some of the questions raised and answered in this frightening book:

• How does torture and coercive methods compare to noncoercive methods when it comes to getting useful information? This is in a sense the difference between the effectivenesss of CIA and FBI in “the war on terror”.
• What long term effects does torture have on its victims?
• What is the effect on those who commit torture?
• What is the strategic effect of employing torture as a weapon in a war, such as the use of torture and summary executions by the CIA in Vietnam and France in Algers? McCoy unstated claim is that in a sense, the CIA’s Phoenix-program cost the US the Vietnam war.
• Can the use of torture ever be effectively limited to avoid torturing innocent civilians?

The book offers a resounding indictment of torture on practical, but more importantly, on moral grounds.

The academic style of the book makes it a bit hard to read. At times, it feels like a collage of quotations. On the other hand, this means that it contains well-documented, important and disturbing claims. In the end, this made it into a very quick read.