Agile Otter Blog

Note: There is good news on this front. Apparently the copyright has been settled, and we have new copies printed last year by Solis press. You may still be able to buy a cop y from Amazon! Now on with the original post.... In 1926, Graham Wallas published a book which has been cited in organizational theory texts all over the world (as well as papers on the  Philosophy of Art ). It presaged cognitive psychology and built a model of creative thought that has helped millions of people recognize and appreciate their own ability to think creatively -- and teach it to others. I don't have a copy of The Art of Thought.  I know it by reputation and reference only. It seems like every once in a while I stumble across yet another reference to the Wallas Model of Creativity , and still I don't have a copy, and have never read a copy of the original work. Why? Because I can't have one. Amazon doesn't have it. Google books doesn't have it. Barnes and Noble doe...

I borrowed this from Dictionary.com, so I kept the first word as a link to the original. I hope that's okay with them. sim·ple      [ sim -p uh l ]     Show IPA   adjective,   sim·pler, sim·plest,   noun adjective 1. easy   to   understand,   deal   with,   use,   etc.:   a   simple   matter; simple   tools. 2. not   elaborate   or   artificial;   plain:   a   simple   style. 3. not   ornate   or   luxurious;   unadorned:   a   simple   gown. 4. unaffected;   unassuming;   modest:   a   simple   manner. 5. not   complicated:   a   simple   design. My hot words are "simple" and "complex." Most people who say "simple" don't mean simple. They mean "easy", with an implied "to think of" or "to type in" or "to do without researching."  Easy is a virtue...

(note: I added a 15th, but was worried that changing the title would invalidate links, so you get a bonus observation at no extra cost) I frequently have to address questions about velocity, so in the interest of time I present all the answers here in a short post: Velocity is a gauge, not a control knob. You can't just turn up the velocity -- you can only break the gauge by trying. Velocity is (frustratingly) a lagging indicator. It primarily tells you about the fundamental process and technical work you did weeks, months, or years ago. You seldom get an immediate, true improvement. Though velocity is a gauge, it is subject to  Goodhart's Law . It is rather dodgy when used as a basis for governance. Velocity value is highly derivative of many factors, chief among them being the work structure of the organization. The more governance and procedure (permission steps, queuing and wait states, official limitations,  risk of personal blame, reporting and rec...

This is a recent find. I tweeted: And received this response: Following his link, I find the page on Context Driven Testing . I have not fully checked out the content (I'm coaching in Chicago today) so I thought I'd leave this as a place-holder for myself and you as well. I'm interested in your comments. What did you learn from the page, what do you think?

Worst Case: Just for a moment, imagine that you are the worst player on your team, but nobody tells you because they don't want you to feel bad. All the other programmers are fixing up your code so it works, your design sense is flawed, and everyone knows it but you. Then you find out. Of course, you'll have a sinking feeling and probably get mad. Let's say for a moment that quitting is not an option. The question is "what are you going to do about it?" For some people the initial response would be shame and anger and abuse of one comforting substance or another (likely liquor, but possibly pizza, cookie dough, or a tub full of Mr. Bubble).  At some point you will realize that you have to go back into the office. Everyone there already knows. It is likely that they have heard that you found out.  Now what? You could get discouraged but that's hardly helpful.  There is only one thing to do: you have to get better. What is the plan? How will you pick...

I have an activity I like to use in training sessions to get to know the people who will be sharing my week. It's fairly obvious that this is useful in a classroom, but it might not be so obvious that this kind of exercise is valuable with people who have already gelled as a team. Here is how it goes: Everyone stands in a circle. The leader (usually me) begins with his name and the answer to a question. Usually the first time I do this, I want to know why people have come to the training. The typical formulation is something like   "I am Tim and the reason I came here today is because I was invited to talk about Object-Oriented design, a topic very near to my heart which I've taught and written about since the early 1990s." The person on the leader's left does likewise, and so on through the circle. Each states their name and gives the answer to the question in a complete sentence (as the leader did). This has a few advantages: Everyone says their name....