Architecture astronaut

"The ability to create an illusion of knowledge among people who don't know any better is really a trait of a shrewd salesperson, not a software architect." - Alex E. Bell on ACM Communications Jan 2009

I remember Joel also made similar discovery that we sometimes got scared by architecture astronauts for no apparent reasons. It is not that I am prejudiced, I found myself constantly come across with this type of architects in many consultancy organisations. To be fair, it isn't an easy job nowadays for even experienced people to keep themselves always refreshed and up-to-dated on latest and arguably greatest techniques. This is also partially due to the mis-conception many people have that being a modern architect means you must be a fashionable cell who waves the poshest terminology and latest releases of instruments. For those reasons, many astronauts start to earn their living in the space of void - which I like to call it void because very few of us really got a grip on overall trends and knowledgeable enough to understand what the heck is going on other than floating around because of universal gravitation. They like to intentionally confuse people by talking a lot of fancy high level abstract concepts in a somewhat confident but misleading ways. Jon once assured me that he also has this "physical/chemical reaction to people who are lazy, stupid and dishonest". These astronauts most of the time have no real clue in what they are talking about other than their outstanding capability of stitching information pieces and managing to express to others in an 'organised' manner; manipulating human weakness - somehow I think this is the definition of being evil.

These astronauts will prosper until we put our feet down in way of inquiring, believing and executing. They will find ways to get into organisations, most likely in architecture positions, and start to cause significant damages, although there will be a period of time they could manage to cover the truth and successfully shift the blames and responsibilities to silly things like politics, infrastructure, tools, engineers etc. After a period of exposure, sooner or later these astronauts would not accustom to the earthy life - their high level teachings go busted. Sadly, at this point of time, more often than not, detrimental effects have already taken place.

Also about GTD

David Allen has certainly illustrated some fundamental while intuitively simple ideas about getting things done, about why, how and what. One thing I sometimes felt misleading is that some people tend to present their ideas from building the foundation, drawing the framework, and only by then they dive into the key points. To me it just wasn't effective enough. I am a big fan of GTD, merely because I could not always get it right.

What I have picked up from his talk in google are,

* Do what you are clear about at this point rather than keep pondering on stuff at high abstract level.

* Perspective is important to make sure all your hard work are actually keeping you in the game, not out of it.

* I found resonance in handling practice. I always keep my inbox at 0 level by the time I call a closure to a day. Apparently, it is much easier to deal with 'surprise' when you don't have too many backlogs.

* Evolution really doesn't like our brain to hold too many threads at a time; it also pay price to switch context. Thus, to really have a peace of mind on something is to know precisely what is going on inside, knowing exactly when and what. Let it be isn't really an option to act on matters concerning your interests.
 

Playing with half of the pieces

Customers often want things because competitors have dangled them in their faces… such “discovery of customer wants” does not provide the basis for strategy; it represents a failure of strategy - Book of Certain To Win, by Chet Richards

I was always wondering what if I could play chess games only using half the pieces while doublethe moves with the guy who beats the hell out and robs like tens of points from me on FICS. Somebody has told me that if I can convince one to do so, it is almost certain that those points will find their way back. Of course I mean if. Officially if he seriously kicked my asses like that, the odds is small that he will buy this...

The point is, if you play with half of the pieces, an organisation would likely be able to double its decision making and execution speed, within the range of capability. This might also be the logic why companies like Google advocating 'lots of small companies' philosophy. WIth half of the pieces, the overhead, amount of message passengers, management internal friction and conflict of interests will certainly decrease accordingly. I have not got the scientific datum as backup, but decrease at rate of log2(n) would be my first bet. 

The other fact always amazes me is the importance of space, or empty. Without half of the pieces, you find your leftover pieces suddenly become alive. There are much less unnecessary barriers, much better chances to maximise the (attack or defence) potential of each piece. With the appreciation of speed, one can easily manuover his pieces into positions and always, whilst no surprise, secure the importan places on the board before his competitor. Whether you are planning, throwing money, getting extra hands, buying more buffer for delivery date, at the end of day, time, is really the only thing that matters, and one thing you can pretty much project everything else down to.