This seemingly inocent question on twitter got me thinking a lot. 'Conventional Wisdom' and 'Common Sense' are often quoted to reject a novel idea, because we all know they cannot be wrong, right?
Wrong.

'Conventional Wisdom' is built the same way as traditions: over time, as a recollection of people experiences. And the same as traditions, they outlive their originator until nobody that quotes it knows the why's anymore. And that is the problem: conventional wisdom used to be true for someone, but some things are lost and it failed to evolve with time.

For example, it used to be Conventional Wisdom that if someone started coughing blood, dead would come pretty soon. Today, Conventional Wisdom says to bring the person to the hospital and will be recovered in no time ( or so we hope).

Another more radical example: 20 years ago, Conventional Wisdom said that cancer was a death sentence. Today, thanksfuly that is not true anymore.

Outside the realm of medicine, after the industrial revolution it was Conventional Wisdom that a worker should be busy 100% of the time. This belief have carried over the modern times. It used to make sense at the time for some factories, because demand was greather that the production capacity. It ceased to make sense as soon as the production capacity grew, surpacing the demand. But the Conventional Wisdom haven't catched up with modern times.

Does this mean that we should disregard 'Conventional Wisdom' as always wrong? I don't think so. We should understand the why's behind it, we may even learn something that may help us later on. And, who knows, it may even be right.

A here you have the tweets that inspired this post:


(with thanks to@YvesHanoulle and @tobi for the though provoking tweet)



A case of Blog Spam

user-pic
Vote 0 Votes
This blog has been recently the target of a blog-spam attack. I'm shutting down the comments for all posts until further notice.

UPDATE: Futher notice :) Blog-spam attack contained, I'm reopening the comments again.


As I said somewhere else in this site, I'm passionate when it comes to programming, seeing it as a craft to be perfected. It is no surprise, then, that I became a confessed Agilist.

Something happened today that made me think about what I think is the meaning to be Agile. The quick answer would be "To value the Agile Manifesto", but somehow I felt that there is more to Agile than that. This is the end result of my musings

Being Agile is more than follow a strict set of practices religiously, that span over all the software development life cycle. It more than trying to go faster, or trying to work better.

Being Agile means to embrace uncertainty, accept change. It means to work on what is actually needed, to produce actual value. It is not measured by the number of practices being followed, or by tagging your process with a methodology. It can be measured by how much we value the manifesto, but the best measure should be the smiles in our users and our team.

Being Agile is more than having a tag or following a procedure. It is a way of thinking, a professional lifestyle, that must be ingrained in the core of the corporate culture, from the C level to the developers, including all the departments.

To become Agile you must be ready to break some paradigms, to challenge the status quo.

Are you ready?




Johanna Rothman, in in her product development blog talks about when a spec should freeze. She basically said "specs never freeze, people communicate about what they want all the time".

What caught my eye was one commenter that said "There is always a point at which the spec must freeze; otherwise, either quality will suffer in some way, or the wrong functionality may not be delivered". That's kind of true, but the problem is not with the lack of spec freeze.



Fear and Safety

user-pic
Vote 0 Votes

Again, another quote from Slack:

"Paradoxically, the fear of breaking your neck (translation in corporate terms: losing your job) does not make changes impossible. It's a much more insidious kind of fear that interferes with change: The fear of mockery. If you want to make change in your organization utterly impossible, try mocking people as they struggle with the new, unfamiliar ways you have just urged upon them. There is no surer way to stop essential change dead."

Go and Buy the book if you haven't already.



That is a subtitle in chapter 13 of Tom DeMarco´s excellent book Slack, dedicated to the Culture of Fear in our organizations.
These are the characteristics of an organization with the Culture of Fear that are listed in the book:
  • It is not safe to say certain things. And truth is no excuse for saying them.
  • In fact, being right in your doubts proved that you must be the reason that the fondest wishes of those above you did not come true.
  • Goals are set so aggresively that there is virtually no chance of achieving them.
  • Power is allowed to trump common sense.
  • Anyone can be abused and abased for a failure to knuckle under.
  • The people that are fired are, on average, more competent than the people who aren´t.
  • The surviving managers are a particulary angry lot. Everyone is terrified of crossing them.

Tom finish that section with the following:
"I hope that as you read these points you're inclined to think thy present a truly extreme picture. I hope this, since it suggests that yours is not a Culture of Fear organization. (If the portrait I'have drawn does not seem extreme to you, you have my sympathies.)"

So, if these points target close to home, do yourself a favor and buy the book. It is a real eye-opener.