Premature allocation of requirements is the root of many system architecture evils.
(With a hat tip to Donald Knuth, who coined: "Premature optimization is the root of all evil.")
***
Premature allocation of requirements is the root of many system architecture evils.
(With a hat tip to Donald Knuth, who coined: "Premature optimization is the root of all evil.")
***
Actor Giancarlo Giannini delivers a memorable line in the movie "A Walk in the Clouds". Giannini plays Alberto Aragon, a Mexican father, very protective of his daughter. He reminds a younger American man (played by Keanu Reeves): "Just because I talk with an accent doesn't mean I THINK with an accent!".
He's right, however, he's only partly right. He does think with an accent -- WE ALL THINK WITH AN ACCENT.
Our 'thinking accent' is formed by our age, base intelligence, education, cultural background, industry, personal experiences, personality, values, fears, intentions, and so many other factors. It makes each one of us see and process things differently from others.
***
Short posts I made on LinkedIn
Do rewards motivate people to behave in the desired manner, or do they just attract people motivated by rewards?
***
Soldier pinned down by enemy fire: "Fire Control, this is Foxtrot. We need close air support now! Over."
Fire control reservist (who is a Business Analyst in civilian life): "Foxtrot, that's a solution, not a requirement. What do you REALLY NEED? Over"
***
If you fail to plan, plan to be agile.
***
***
If you like putting out fires you should be a firefighter.
If you like recovering after a fire you should be in disaster recovery.
If you like tallying up the cost of fires you should be in accounting.
If you like analysing tradeoffs between the risk of fire and cost of prevention you should be an analyst.
If you like preventing fires you should be in safety or quality.
If you like monitoring distant fires and where they are heading you should be in risk.
If you like playing with fire you should be a scientist.
If you like harnessing fire you should be a manager or engineer or entrepreneur.
If you like starting fires you are just an arsonist.
***
If you attended a course that teaches how to do better in IQ tests, and you did get higher scores afterwards, did your IQ get higher, or did you just learn how to do better in IQ tests?
***
***
***
***
A collection of short posts I made on LinkedIn:
The MoSCoW priority labels coincidentally also describe Hitler’s and Napoleon’s changing attitudes toward capturing the eponymed city:
Must have it
Should have had it by now
Could have it still if only
Won’t have it.
* * *
Not everything that matters can be measured
Not everything that can be measured matters
To twist JFK’s words:
Ask not what you can measure
Ask what measures can do for you
To badly paraphrase Einstein:
Everything that matters and can be measured must be measured, but no simpler
***
Carpe diem caveat – “Seize the day”, not “cease the day”. The intention may be the former; the result may be the latter.
***
Continuous improvement must seek to do two things: make existing processes better, and stop introducing new bad processes in the first place.
***
Remind your audience that THERE IS such a thing as a stupid question -- it’s the question you keep to yourself.
***
Lots of people talk about 'Systems Thinking'. What's the verb for doing systems thinking it? Shh... be quiet, I'm systems thinking!
***
If you believe that user stories are requirements, try calling them 'user requirements'.
***
What's the term to describe the opposite of scope creep -- when scope keeps getting reduced because we're running out of time or budget?
***
Inspired by, "I have a statistics joke, but it's not significant" (floating on the internet)...
I have a project management joke, but it's still in the concept phase.
I have a risk management joke, but there's no appetite for it.
I have a requirements analysis joke, but it's not functional.
I have a logistics management joke, but I can't deliver it properly.
I have a Scrum joke, but it's not empirical enough.
I have a Scrum joke, but we'll have to do a retrospective afterwards.
I have a Lean joke, but I never remember it just in time.
I have a Kanban joke, leave your card here and I'll tell it to you.
As an Agile proponent, I want to say I have a joke, so that people can get amused.
I have a systems thinking joke, but I have to say it with 30 others jokes before you'l get it.
I have an andon joke, but you have to stop me if I'm telling it the wrong way.
(Part of my undertaking to read Chapter 2 of books in my library.)
This book was published in 2014, so there will be some contents that are out of date. A lot of activity has occurred in the central counterparties regulatory world recently.
Many derivatives contracts, such as options, and futures, are traded on an exchange. In an exchange, derivatives contracts are standardised. Standardisation leads to efficiency and tradeability.
While originally, contracts where traded on an exchange where the exchange served merely as a witness, and not a counterparty to the trade. If a trading party did not live up to the contract, the exchange would fine them or even expel them.
Only approved firms and individuals may trade in an exchange.
Exchanges facilitate margining and netting between trade counterparties, which reduce the magnitude of risk for each side.
There are 3 forms of clearing: direct clearing, ring clearing, and complete clearing. Direct clearing is where each party delivers their contract obligations to the other. If there are offsetting trades, often the practice is to just net the difference, a practice called "netting", or "payment of difference". Ring clearing is an expansion of direct clearing to more than two parties. The parties must agree to join the ring. If A must pay B, who must pay C, then C can receive the payment directly from A. The exchange itself is not a participant other than an enforcer of rules. A disadvantage of rings is that a quality counterparty may be replaced by one that has lower credit quality. Not everyone in the ring benefits. Complete clearing extends and improves the ring by placing the exchange as a central counterparty to all parties. A party no longer has to worry about the credit rating of their counterparty; the exchanges assumes the rights and responsibilites of the counterparty.
Of course, if an exchanges assumes the obligations of a party, it must protect itself from exposures arising from an insolvent party. Two ways to mitigate the exposure is through the practice of initial margins and variation margins. In addition to margins, a method of loss sharing is also implemented. One practice is requiring all members to make share purchases.
There was resistance to this concept early one: firms with high quality rating felt they lost their advantage over lower quality firms because a firm's credit rating became irrelevant. The counterparty service can be provided by the exchange, or be provided by another firm offering that service for the eschange.
All derivatives market clearing service became standardised and used central clearing until OTC's arrived on the scene.
To be continued...


Chapter 2 "Establish Quality Goals"
NOTES
A goal is an "aimed-at" target. A quality goal is a quality target you are aiming for. The goal would typically include "a number" and a "time table"A job ad for a software engineer listed the following tools. I'm not familiar with half of them (not even by name). Writing down the list as I'm curious to do some digging and find out what each are:
I have quite a number of books in my library, virtually all of them non-fiction. I'm starting to think there's not enough time to read them all. Skimming each one doesn't really help me absorb them, so I thought it might be interesting to explore the books by reading Chapter 2 of each.
Today's book is Make Up Your Mind, by Hal Mooz. The author is well-known in the Systems Engineering community as co-author of Visualizing Project Management, and
Communicating Project Management.
Chapter 2 of this book is "Decision Fundamentals for Thinking Clearly". It's a short chapter and touches very briefly several topics relevant to thinking clearly.
We get a reminder that decision rigor is 'driven by the fear of a negative outcome'. This is something we all instinctly already know. We become more anxious when the decision has serious consequences (eg, which univerisity to go to), and are rightly less rigorous when the consequences are not serious (eg, what to have for lunch).
An interesting paragraph is on when do we actually 'make' a decision? Does deciding one way or another constitute making the decision or is further action required? Some decision experts say you make the decision when you irrevocably allocate resources. (I had not heard of this before. I think it's a good criteria). The author argues against it because it fails in some cases. His example is the decision to lose weight and deciding to eat less. Contrary to this criteria, the decider has actually decided NOT to allocate resources (food).
The author defines a good decision as 'applying informed judgment based on relevant facts and quality ethics to select an alternative and act on it'.
A short paragraph reminds us that the outcome does not define whether a decision is good or not. This is pretty much an obligatory topic in any decision making text. Another paragraph covers another obligatory topic -- the fallacy of sunk costs.
Mooz introduces a concept new to me: 'Cost / Price of Indifference'. It is the purchase price at which you don't care (emotionally) whether you get the goods or not. He suggests this is a time saving concept when purchasing or selling anything. Rather than agonising hours and hours over how much to bid, just bid at this price. He did not discuss this in the context of buying stock market shares. I think that will be interesting to consider.
There are two stages to decision-making. The first is Decision Preparation. This is about getting the decision statement right, setting up the decision type frame, and the decision solution frame correct. The second stage Deciding, which is about the act of selecting from the alternatives that were set up in the decision solution frame. (The author didn't mention this, but I recognise this 2-stage framework as classically systems engineering).
Other short topics covered is the decision maker's viewpoint, decision fitness, and decision fatigue. Decision Fitness is another concept I had not heard of before. This is a concept about the fitness of the person making the decision. They must be proficient at the following skills: