∞

Specialists and generalists

I think it’s pretty easy to convince ourselves that in many contexts, especially work, we are becoming more specialized, moving away from being generalists. As an evolutionary process, it allows us to better fill more niches. However, with this specialization, the complexity of communicating across contexts is increased. With a decrease in communication, the opportunities for leverage are similarly decreased.

For as long as I remember, I’ve been convinced that the only way to solve the “really big problems” is with multi-disciplinary teams. Like most things, my conception and understanding of the “really big problems” has evolved as I’ve changed. Over time, they’ve included the academic (how to access enough knowledge to be a true generalist, not a specialist), the serious (how to resolve conflict between radically different cultures) to the silly (how can I fly away from home with my own personal space plane).

No doubt influenced by some optimistic science fiction, the way I saw it as a child is, at it’s essence, the way I see it today: that a group of people from different, diverse backgrounds and interests will solve problems no one else can and will do things others say can¿t be done. Sometimes intentionally (and sometimes not) I continue to return time and again to act on that conviction.

As part of that conviction it seemed obvious to me that there must be a discipline which represents the common foundation underlying the many other domains, i.e. a “common language.” However, I¿ve never found a discipline which quite seemed right, i.e. no university program which teaches quite what I’m thinking of. While some disciplines had a piece which I was interested in, certainly some aspects of the humanities & liberal arts speak to this, other pieces were missing and I could never imagine specializing in that discipline - the results seemed too narrow.

Independent of situation, the interest and conviction has remained. Today it manifests in my education and profession, I have ample experience in the specifics, yet a passion for the general that spans the boundaries of many disciplines.

∞

Formal Versus Agile? You've Got It All Wrong!

As I interpret it, the agile versus formal debate is generally treated as an either or question. For instance, in any given software development situation there may be an assessment that it would have worked better if only an agile approach was used or for a project like this, you must use a formal approach. Only rarely does there seem to be an advocate that suggests integrating aspects of both approaches.

Inevitably, this has resulted in religious arguments about which approach is better, and religious arguments are usually from an absolutist’s perspective.

A funny thing happened on the way to resolving this issue; some folks with poor practices attempt to partake of any legitimacy that the agile approach offers by reinterpreting their practices as agile. Their approach is to elevate any poor practice they have as really being agile. Equally confused, other folks have taken genuine successes from the agile approach and reinterpreted them as luck, hacking, or some other variant of happenstance. Their approach is to reduce any agile success to at best the results of wishful thinking.

What do these two different groups of people, the elevationists and the reductionists, have in common? Both of these groups have a perspective that only allows for two levels of software development: lets call them conventional and non-conventional.

  • Conventional: formal or heavy approaches, e.g. Rational Unified Process (RUP), CMM, etc.
  • Non-Conventional: anything other than conventional.
My argument is that one significant limitation to resolving this issue is the two-level model, and that by reinterpreting the evidence using a three- (or more) level model, a path towards resolution becomes visible.

In addition, this re-interpretation can be shown to be an instance of a concept identified by Ken Wilber and named the ¿pre/trans fallacy¿. While this think piece is about software development processes, the subject area that the pre/trans fallacy originally referred to is much more universal and significant, that of human consciousness (e.g. Ken Wilber Online: Introduction to Volume 1 of The Collected Works). The pre/trans fallacy is part of a larger model called the Integral Model [need citation].

∞

A Light-Weight Critique of The Brain's User Interface

In the article and in the interview excerpts (from the now-defunct Feed site) Harlan Hugh makes the argument that an “associative interface” is the future of user interfaces for information management.

While I agree with his intent, and like the results (I’m a happy customer of The Brain), I believe there’s an interesting reduction that’s taking place - which may obscure both where The Brain fits and where user-interfaces could go.

Essentially I read The Brain as an analogy that since the brain functons (internally) via associations, then the best user interface will be based on some presentation that has associations as the primary (visual) metaphor. As I see it, The Brains associative interface is a successful realization of an analogy between how to manage information externally and how information is managed (allegedly) internally. This analogy is both a strength and weakness. To illustrate my concern, let me apply the same analogical structure managing food externally versus internally. Please note that I see this as a somewhat contrived example:

“Since the digestive system functions via breaking down food into component protiens, nutrients and minerals, then the best food will be based on some assembly of those components."

While both analogies are true, an interesting question is what do they omit? In my food analogy, it’s the qualitative experience food that’s ommitted (e.g. taste, smell, appearance, etc.)

For information management, the question is harder - as there are likely multiple answers yet to be discovered. However, I think what’s ommitted includes task-oriented interfaces, linear oriented presentations (e.g. around time such as Scopeware ex. Mirrorworlds).

Another aspect to the question is to further explore the analogy, by considering how different brains process information differently. Jerry Michalski made an interesting point about individual differences and The Brain. Consider that if you accept a model that different people process sensory data differently (e.g. Neuro-Linguistic Programming), then The Brain may be a better fit for those people who have strengths in processing visual information, versus people who may have strengths in processing auditorially or kinesthetically. What types of interfaces would fit as well for them? Would the visual associations depicted in The Brain be as useful - or would it be more useful to augment it or depict it differently?