Rambling

Long ago I studied Project Management very briefly. OmniTI does a mix of project work and operations work and the orchestration of those two things is quite interesting (more to come on that in a future blog post). Regardless, my understanding of project management principals was getting far to rusty and I decided to read up.

The Fast Forward MBA in Project Management by Eric Verzuh, while likely an awful project management book for anyone serious about learning the deeper craft of project management was an excellent book for me. It runs through a brief history of the topic and then launches into terms, technique concepts and explains their purpose. Occasionally, the author is really talking to the reader as if they will be applying the techniques as a project manager. Given that this book is (appropriately) geared toward someone pursuing an MBA, it seems unlikely that a real (good) project manager would ever read this book.

Most of my colleagues said something like: "A book on project management... must be riveting." I responded that I was actually enjoying it, but around 85% of the way through the tide turned and from thereon out I wanted to gouge out my eyeballs. Miraculously, I pulled through and finished with vision in tact. I'd recommand this book to other business people that have the need to hire and/or manage project managers. The restraint learned by not gouging your eyeballs out at the end of the book can even be applied at times when working with a bad project manager.

The one thing that got me thinking in the book (and that's what I really want books to do) was the articulated different between projects and operations. It was clear and well laid out. It spoke to the intrinsic need for a fundamentally different management style for projects and for ongoing operations. While that itself may be obvious, it make me realize that many of the engagements we take on at OmniTI aren't just "a bit of both" they are both. I'm still collecting my deeper thoughts on this, but suffice it to say I have more understanding and respect for why it is so challenging to manage expectations when delivering fast-paced services offerings on the Internet.

One of my favorite jokes always results with a wry grin on my face and ends with the punchline: "fuck the blind." Like many jokes, it is not politically correct. The only reason these jokes are funny is that they expose prejudices and injustices that still exist. Many of us laugh at these things and find little bits of truth in ourselves. The best of us reflect on that and increase our level of tolerance for all things different. I, like most Americans, have a long way to go, but see profoundly increased tolerance from generation to generation.

I am for freedom of choice; it allows people and corporations to take action on which they can be harshly judged. Amazon has given publishers the choice of disallowing their author's works from being automatically read aloud by computer. Now, I actually have no issues with this. If an audio version of a work is provided at the same price as the print version, then we have some element of accessibility. However, if a publisher disallows this and makes no spoken derivative available I think I get the message: "fuck the blind." However, I'm no longer laughing.

We can always be better at what we do, right? My father gave me this book a long time ago and yesterday I ran across it an consumed it. It's a discuss of the art of loving (but not really). It talks about the discipline and dedication required to master any art and goes on to postulate that the art of loving is no different: to become a master you must dedicate yourself to the pursuit of the art in everything you do.

Like most philosophy books it is part bullshit and part common sense (the real value where the two meet) and 100% something that you can argue about. Most Western philosophers stick to their axiomatic Aristotelian logic to explain their ideas, but then dive into paradoxical logic when convenient to their argument and the reader will never know if it actually explains more to them than it did to the writer (or so said 老子). Everything is nothing. That which is one, is one; that which is not one, is one. All having profound truth if you define their context. This book is no different, it leaves you with a well-argued (even if not-so-compelling) opinion on that which stands in the way of good ol' lovin'.

It's more a book about the philosophy of giving love as opposed to receiving it (or more pointedly, expecting it). The only reason I've gone through all the effort of writing about it on my blog is that I rather enjoyed other aspects of this book. Now, I will digress into two unrelated topics: religion and parenting... Wow. WTF?

Religion

I do believe that the experience of being one with everything is fulfilling and leads to happiness. One can call that religion or a belief structure... I call it living. Religions that anthropomorphically approach the goal of being one with everything make no sense to me. As such, Fromm's discussions on loving God were quite fascinating. He expounds upon an evolution of religious practice: most interestingly the interpretation of religious conscience in the form of beliefs versus actions. He makes an statement that action-based religions are more evolved than belief-based religions. I like the argument because I agree.

Parenting

Fromm talks about motherly and fatherly love in a way that is almost palpable in the context of the era in which the book was written (1950s). It's an interesting throw-back into a time before my existence, but I find it profoundly interesting as I see the delineation between motherly love and fatherly love (in the roles of the mother and father) eroding in modern society. Our attempts to instill equality have resulted in a profound amount of sameness. As such, in our society, fathers tend to show much of the same unconditional love that is shown by mothers. (Fromm blames this on capitalism -- that's an awesome argument, I chuckled through most of that section). This erosion is not a bad or good thing, it just is. It does however put us in a position where our previous understanding of how love works is less applicable, but hey... evolution's a bitch.

Wez Furlong wrote an interesting piece on "seven thing" you may not know about him. He singled me out... (er... sevened me out)... as someone he'd like to know seven things about. I figured this would be a fun reflective journey down memory lane, so here goes...

1. My good friend Aaron gave me the nick-name Jesus in college -- it stuck. Though I've had many many hairstyles before and since (including the ever-popular flat top).
2. I studied electrical engineering at The Johns Hopkins University, but accidently satisfied the requirements for a Bachelor of Science in computer science and was graduated without my E.E. degree.
3. I finished each of middle school, high school, my undergraduate degree, and my graduate degree one year sooner than expected.
4. I married the love of my life at the age of twenty.
5. I created a MIG-29 flight game on Apple IIe when I was ten. And the went to run my own BBS on my Packard Bell 286.
6. I have bad circulation, so my feet are always cold... really, really cold.
7. I enjoy using my hands to create and change things. Mostly home construction like renovations, landscaping (before / after), etc. My next career will be carpentry or landscaping.

I'm supposed to chain seven people that I'd enjoying know seven things about. If figure that even if these people don't buy into this distraction, at least they'd be flattered that I thought of them.

• Joshua Drake, a man on a mission not too different from my own
• Bryan Cantrill, whose technology rocks my world
• Chris Shiflett, who never speaks of himself
• Lisa Schlossnagle, who keeps me balanced (I really want to see the seven people to whom she chains)
• Paul Querna, hacker extraordinaire
• David Reid, who manages to hold a real (interesting) job outside of technology
• Sergey Ivanov, who seems to have more interesting stories than a library

and the rules:

• Link your original tagger(s), and list these rules on your blog.
• Share seven facts about yourself in the post - some random, some weird.
• Tag seven people at the end of your post by leaving their names and the links to their blogs.
• Let them know they've been tagged by leaving a comment on their blogs and/or Twitter.

There is a pleasant dream where the world is black and white, problems are discreet, and solutions are straightforward. People that live in this dream are an obstacle unto themselves. The harsh reality is that we struggle daily to simplify things because they tend to be so complex. Most choices lead to outcomes that have both positive and negative aspects. This includes the choice of inaction (wrongfully referred to as "not choosing"). When presented with options, by and large people tend to make decent choices. The conundrum is identifying good options when none are presented. This skill, in many people, just plain sucks.

There is an old proverb: "Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish and you have fed him for a lifetime." Perhaps I am oversimplifying fishing, but I struggle to adapt this proverb to systems operations. Perhaps it is due to the intangible nature of computing, but the one-step-closer proverb fits better (at least in my twisted brain): "Fix a man's car, and he can drive to the repair shop. Teach man to fix his car and he can go where he pleases." Why is this better? Perhaps it is just how my mind works. Perhaps it is because of the way symptoms present:

Dave: my car has issues.
Carl: what's wrong with it?
Dave: not sure.
Carl: why do you think it has issues?
Dave: It seems sluggish when pulling onto the interstate.
Carl: so it accelerates inadequately?
Dave: I guess.
Carl: What kind of car do you have again?
Dave: a brown one.
Carl: Uh, I mean make and model.
Dave: a Ronda Jackel.
Carl: is that carbureted or fuel injected?
Dave: um... um... it's got carbs.
Carl: really? what year?
Dave: oh, 2007.
Carl: okay, it's fuel injected.
Dave: oh, yeah.. That's right.. it's the Jackel GT, with the sports pack.
Carl: That has low-profile tires; are they properly inflated?
Dave: I think so, they look good.
Carl: when was the last time you checked?
Dave: last week, when I filled up. It costs like $58 to fill up. Gas prices are crazy!
Carl: *thinks*
Carl: Wow, where did you find high-test gas at that price?
Dave: Oh, I put 87 octane in that... that expensive stuff is a sham...
Carl: really? who told you that?
Dave: Alan
Carl: Who's Alan?
Dave: This great guy who taught me to fish.

Most people simply have no idea how their systems operate. They just know they are supposed to "go." Now, the purpose of this rant is really not to complain about car owners and their lack of knowledge (I'm one of them!), but rather to ask a wider audience about techniques to make the Carl's of the world better at their jobs.

Computing systems, like cars, can be immensely complex systems. When things go wrong, as they so often do, I feel you need someone who knows every single part. Not only should they know the part, they should know who built the part, why they built the part, when it was introduced into the system, what component it obsoleted, and what general advantages (and disadvantages) the newer part has over the older part. In car-speak, you should know who invented fuel-injection and when the industry transitioned, what advantages (and disadvantages) FI has over carburetor-based design. That should extend to every other part of the car down to the rubber on the tires and the stitching method used on the seat upholstery.

Note that I said "I feel you need someone..." I know a few people that can walk into a room with systems engineers and (knowing nothing about systems operations) assess a situation, ask a handful of high-level questions that results in at least two engineers slamming their heads into their desks. I call these people "Critical Thinkers." Critical Thinkers have the ability to critically think (surprise surprise), as well as understand other people's thought processes and deduce where they did not think critically.

Critical Thinkers are hard to come by, but they are out there. People with experience in computer science and operations are a little less hard to come by. It would make sense to take a Critical Thinker and teach them systems. However, to be really good at operations work, it takes years (probably five to ten). What is more challenging is finding a good Critical Thinker that actually wants to work in systems operations. What I constantly strive to do is mold people with solid technical skills and knowledge into critical thinkers. This brings us to the heart of this post.

I can hardly articulate my method of teaching critical thinking skills. Much of it is teach-by-example, but that has serious shortcomings in critical thinking scenarios. I could really use some breadth in my teaching/mentoring techniques. Does anyone have any good training materials that could be used to develop critical thinking skills? How do you cultivate and improve intuition?