Getting it done: The three lodgepoles of Agile

 

     Back in 2001, when the 17 developers gathered around and argued and discussed and came up with the "Agile Manifesto", there were a lot of things that they didn't agree upon and a few things that they did agree on. Certainly those 17 people, and those they have trained, can talk more in depth about Agile specifically than I can. Although I have taken "Product Owner" and "ScrumMaster" courses my own experience of Agile comes more from trying to ride herd on groups of developers (and managers) trying to make the transition from waterfall to Agile (SCRUM, as the specific variant goal). And some of their discussion and points are rooted in some of the things that I was exposed to starting 25 years before their gathering.

     Be aware that, although the Agile Manifesto was done in conjunction with software engineering, it can apply to any project -- including home remodeling or building that paper maché model for high school or putting together an anniversary party.

     One of the things that they used in discussion at, and I tried to learn from prior to their gathering, was the experiences of "The Mythical Man Month". Although the technologies used within may be considered prehistoric by many, the approaches and mistakes have certainly continued to the present day with Agile approaches attempting to divert people, and projects, away from such catastrophic results. Within this project, as relayed in the book, there was a mad, accelerating, scramble to try to bring a project back onto a schedule with proper quality and without bankrupting the company.

     There are three major aspects of projects -- resources, time, and quality. Resources can include the number of people, the amount of equipment, square footage, shoot -- basically anything that has a limitation but can be expanded (resources can extend to mental/specific expertise availability and limitations). Time is rather straight-forward (thought the general topic has been thrashed out for centuries by philosophers and scientists). Quality is a slippery object but it is usually defined at the end by agreeing whether it came out as useful as desired. (Defining acceptance criteria will almost always help to determine whether the quality goals have been met.) Although (as far as I know) they never called these aspects the "three lodgepoles", I think that it is a good description. 

     Lodgepoles are really just long, straight, sturdy poles. However, if three or more are bound together, they can form a sturdy structure for support of other things (potentially a habitation as was done with the First Nations of the Americas). They can be used to support a kettle over a campfire to cook a soup in. Three will succeed. Two, or one, will not be able to be sufficiently sturdy to hold that kettle or structure.

     So it is with "the three lodgepoles of Agile". You have these three aspects that provide the support for a project -- but you can only try to control two of them. If you try to control time and quality then you cannot control resources (the primary discovery within the Mythical Man Month). If you try to control quality and resources, then time is unknown (this happens with projects that never arrive at their goal). Or, if you try to control time and resources then achieving desired quality may be an illusion (note that most of the time what happens is, as the illusion of quality fades away then the time and/or resource restrictions start being revisited and expanded).

     When moving over to an Agile structure, this limitation is very difficult for management to understand -- and overly frustrating to other workers who are doing their very best to satisfy.

     Take a "typical" project. You decide what you want to do, how many people are available (or you can afford) to do it, and say when you want to have it done. OK, the date arrives and it isn't the way you wanted it to be -- quality has given way. Or you are continuing to work on the project and keep saying "it will be ready in just another two weeks ..." (over and over) -- time has given way. Or the quality isn't where you want it to be and that anniversary date is coming up fast (difficult to change an anniversary date), and you start calling everyone you know to see if they can help -- resources have gone out of control.

     In our conversion process towards Agile, that "time" component kept being a problem. In part, this was because the marketing and sales division was NOT moving towards "Agile" (for marketing and sales, there really needs to be some type of ongoing delivery system with steadily moving different dates with features -- such as a subscription model for software). So, huge amounts of resources kept being used to keep track of "time" -- although everyone participating knew that they couldn't really control all three lodgepoles. Delivery dates, software completion dates, etc. And that brings us back to that Mythical Man Month -- resources were allocated to doing what couldn't really be done -- which leads us back to the frustrations of the 17 people at the Agile meeting.

     Life is interesting.

The Elasticity of Time: Faster, slower, in reverse?

 

     One of my blogs from five years talked about the "inner child". Actually, it was more that -- within us -- about the reality that we still have that 5-year-old and that 15-year-old and such other periods in our lives. But, there is another aspect of time and that is our perception of it as we move through our lives.

     When we are young, perhaps five years old, then that final month until the holidays takes forever. But, at a modest sixty-five years of age, that month takes only an instant. One way of approaching this difference is that, at age five, a month is 1/60 of our life so far. And, at 65, a month is only 1/780 of our life so far. So, that period of a month is proportionately much longer when we are young.

     But the difference in perception does not necessarily depend on chronological measurements. Time is, after all, a human definition according to perception. The amount of experiences may change the perceptions also. In general, a 65-year-old would be expected to have more experiences than a five-year-old. But, a five-year-old who is growing up in a war zone will have different (and perhaps more) experiences from a five-year-old growing up on a rural farm or a five-year-old growing up in a poor section of a large urban center. Those experiences will vary according to physical, social, and societal environments. And those experiences will also affect perception of time. I propose that future time perception is shortened by greater amounts of experience.

     But an hour to that five-year-old is not always the same. That hour until school lets out is not the same as an hour until they have to leave an amusement park. Yet the time that has elapsed on a clock indicates the same number of minutes. What is the difference? One way of looking at it might be that of desire. When you are anticipating, or desiring, an event in the future it seems slower. When you dread it, it seems slower.

     But that may be a matter of focus. When you focus on that future event then you are NOT focusing on what is going on from minute to minute. Those things that are happening in the now shorten the distance to the future if they are focused upon. Ride the roller coaster one more time. Read one more chapter of that fantastic book you hope will never end. If your focus is on other things then that future period of time can come so quickly. In the world of work, that means that if you are doing something interesting and challenging, which requires focus, then quitting time gets forgotten (for better or worse).

     All of the above is about the speed of advancing towards the future. But what about the past? Well, so far at least, there is no going back in time to the general past. But OUR past? Every time we find ourself thinking about something that once happened, we are on a personal time trip. Within dreams, they may vary and become more detailed. It is even possible to reach a depth where time is perceived as being re-lived. And, unfortunately, some can get stuck and disappear from the present.

     As best we know, time goes along with entropy -- as the universe decays and becomes more chaotic, our perception follows along. But, within that general direction, our perception of time can do many things. What is particularly interesting about time to you?

Does Anybody Really Know What Time It Is?

     The United States (most of it) just went through the Spring ritual of changing to Daylight Savings Time. Or, as a cartoon published during my childhood indicated, cutting off one end of the blanket and sewing it on the other end. Along with the changing to DST comes the biannual articles and discussions on whether we should stay with Daylight Savings Time (I assume that it would then become the new "Standard" time and the old "Standard" time would disappear) year round.
     Personally, I don't know the "best" answer. But it does call out vividly that time, as displayed on a clock, is arbitrary. What we call time is a human invention. Of course, time as a reflection of entropy (physical movement towards disorder) exists without humans -- but it is unknown whether the manner in which we perceive time (past -> present -> future) is fixed or a matter of perspective.
     Within the general human situation, perception of time is generally more important than the numbers with which we associate it. It takes "forever" to receive an anticipated message or event. Children grow up "so quickly". In my experience (I cannot say about yours), looking back at time seems much shorter than looking ahead.
     I have a personal theory that perceived length of time is proportional to one's chronological age. Thus, for a five-year-old, a year is an enormous amount of time because it is 1/5 of their life so far. But, for a 60-year-old, a year seems much shorter.
     Perception of time is also cultural. Some cultures (stereotypical for the Swiss citizen) are "ruled by the clock" -- everything must be done exactly "on time" and the schedule rules. Other cultures (it is supposed to be traditionally true for many in the First Nations) see it as a general framework. Thus, "tomorrow morning" may vary plus or minus a day. And yet other cultures make an assumption of inherent delays in most planned events -- so a plane that takes off at "7pm" might actually take off sometime between 6:30pm and 9pm (or later, if mechanical or staffing problems intercede). And that is OK because punctuality is not expected.
     Another variable of perceived time is focus. If I am focused on doing something -- because of a deadline or because I really love doing it -- then I am concentrating on the task and not on the time and time will go "fast". If I am thinking of things other than the current task, "waiting" for something "better", or trying to keep in mind multiple things that should happen within the same period, time goes "slowly".
     One more parameter to the perception of time is emotion. If you are dreading something, time usually seems to go faster. If you are looking forward to something, then it "just never arrives". Perception of time seems to be the inverse of how much you want the event to arrive. I don't want it, it happens "faster". I do want it, it happens "slower".
     So, to answer the original question -- no, probably no one really knows what time it is. Does anyone really care?
    

Processed Foods: The good, the bad, and the ugly

   The first step in processing foods is the act of harvesting. So, saying that a person doesn't like processed foods is a bit on the silly side. Picking an apple off of a tree or shucking an ear of corn is processing the food.

   The next stage of processing involves changing the food physically. Food is cut up. It is ground. It is juiced. It is shredded. If it doesn't look the same as when it was harvested, then it has been changed physically.

   Now we come to the part that involves chemical change. This isn't always what people consider to be chemical change. Drying something in the sun will involve chemical (and physical) changes. Fermenting a juice into an altered liquid that contains alcohol is a chemical change. Applying heat and cooking a food is a chemical change. Putting something in a different substance (even water) will often -- but not always -- initiate a chemical change.

   Processing food makes it easier to eat -- or more interesting to eat -- or makes it easier to store for longer periods of time. These are not bad goals. So, what is the big deal about processed foods? Why would anyone object to processed foods.

   As usual, the problems arise out of the details -- the hows, whats, and whys. Harvesting isn't usually considered a big problem -- unless it is done in a way that has "side-effects". For example, some foods are most easily harvested by starting a big fire and sifting through the remains. Other foods might be harvested by killing the main plant when only a small part is going to be used for food. Finally, there is the background issue (not to be discussed at length here) of production which is necessary for harvesting to occur.

   Physical processing takes energy. If physically preparing food is part of the daily routine then it is a closed system -- energy given by eating the foods is used in the preparation of those same foods. However, when we buy something already processed then we are also requiring energy to be used for the preparation as well as transport. That energy is likely to include non-renewable energy sources.

   Now comes the most controversial part of processed foods -- chemical changes. The previously mentioned changes would usually be considered "natural" (although they are not all likely to occur without some intervention by some other living entity). When "artificial" processing (as mentioned in another blog, these terms don't have as distinct of a difference as people often seem to think) is involved, the food will change in ways that cannot always be predicted.

   Edible items (we'll continue to call them foods) can be produced from inorganic (not originally alive) components. During the processing of foods, additives can be included that change flavors (this can include spices and herbs -- but also inorganic chemicals) or make the food last longer (usually called preservatives), or become more addictive (added sugars, salt, certain chemical substances) to increase marketing and sales. These types of processing can make the food less healthy -- and this is the big deal about processed foods. Commercially prepared processed foods are often less healthy than fresh or personally processed foods.

   So, why do people buy processed foods -- and why are people buying a larger and larger percentage of their food in the form of processed foods? I would categorize that in the regions of time, convenience, marketing susceptibility, and (for many items) monetary savings. Using processed foods saves time -- it reduces the time to prepare, the time to consider the recipe, and usually time to cook or put on the table.

   In the case of processed fresh fruits and vegetables, you will probably be paying quite a bit extra to have someone process them for you -- but you may save, if you are single, because you are only buying the amount that you will eat. This is a cost trade-off.

   In the case of stored (frozen, refrigerated, canned, or packaged) processed foods, it is often true that it will cost you less to buy processed food from the store. This is because the food processing company pays less for the ingredients because they buy in huge quantities and because the energy costs in labor and machinery are less than what it would take for you to prepare. The actual costs of the food may amount to 1/4 of what you would have to spend to prepare it personally. With the markups of transportation, storage, and profits at different stages, the final price is still often less than what you could realistically prepare. So, it ends up being a choice concerning time and quality.

   Marketing susceptibility is a huge topic (and one on which I have briefly discussed in other blogs). This is buying products that you KNOW are not good for you and which may not even taste as good as healthier alternatives -- but if convinced that it is the popular thing to eat (in the popular quantities) then you may choose to buy and consume it.

   The "ugliest" part of commercially processed foods is the addictive parts. Processed sugar (including High Fructose Corn Syrup) is an addictive and unhealthy substance. It can be found in many processed foods including canned vegetables. Check the ingredient list! Salt is a flavor enhancer but, for some people, it can be hard on the body in excessive amounts. Governmental control agencies have stopped the addition of such substances as cocaine, coca leaves, and other known addictive chemicals (yes, they did use such at one time) into foods but there isn't enough oversight to make sure that other newer chemicals do not have addictive or destructive effects.

   The bottom line is that processing food is a long, and reasonable, thing. Local processing is probably always healthier than commercial processing but there are reasons why people choose to buy commercially processed foods -- and why they take more and more shelf space in the supermarkets and grocery stores.

   Do you make use of processed foods? What kinds do you purchase? Do you check the ingredient lists when you make choices? Does it matter to you if you are preparing for one or two versus preparing for a large family gathering?

Analog and digital data

I thought that I would talk about digital media -- CDs, DVDs, Blu-Ray, and so forth. But then I realized that I really needed to first talk about what digital media are -- and that, in turn, means that it is important to talk about analog.

Analog data are a reflection of events that occur on a continual basis. Such things include time, temperature, sound, moving images, water flowing, and so forth. An analog watch is known by its "face" -- where the "hands" are located to allow a person to interpret the data (information).

It would be completely possible for a watch to have a single hand. All the information is present in the hour hand. However, it is difficult to "read" (interpret) the value with a single hand and, therefore, analog watches and clocks normally have a minute hand and may even have a second hand.

In my old university, they had an analog computer. Set up correctly, it would be able to be used to calculate an exact value for Pi. But this brings up further the problems with analog data -- being able to actually make use of the data in a precise manner.An analog thermometer can give a precise value but can a person really read it that clearly? Is it saying 98.6 or saying 98.53?

Digital data can only create approximations of continual information. There are a lot of non-continual data in the world -- particularly in the area of finances. However, when it comes to continual data, you are involved with sampling rates and precision. The sampling rate is how often you "mark down" the information. You take a sample of sound at 1 hour, 20 minutes, 15 seconds, and 180 milliseconds. You then take a sample of the sound every 20 milliseconds -- but, whatever interval you choose, you are also choosing to ignore the data that exists when you are not taking a sample. You will never really know what happened within that 20 millisecond gap. You can guess what it might be -- that is called interpolation -- but you cannot know.

The second part of digital data is precision. For money (or other non-continual data), the precision is self-defined by what exists (although other units may exist for formulas -- like taxes). For continual data, the precision is a choice. Do you record 98.5, 98.54, 98.536, 98.5359, or what? Once again, you lose data/information and your choice CAN make a difference if the data are used in a repetitive fashion (such as calculating trajectories for a space ship).

So, analog data are accurate but very difficult to interpret precisely. Digital data are an approximation but have ease of interpretation as a built-in aspect of the choices that are made.

And this leads into the next blog "What makes Blu-Ray (TM) Blue?"