BarCamp 2009

This Saturday I attended my first BarCamp. The BarCamp RDU 2009 was hosted by Red Hat at their HQ on the NC State University campus in lovely Raleigh. Approximately 200 people attended and from that audience 36 people were able to present on a diverse set of topics.

Similarly to the CloudCamp I participated in last fall, the BarCamp is run in an "unconference format". At the beginning of the day people that thought they had a good idea would put the name of their topic on a sheet of paper, queue up for the podium, and when your turn came, pitch your concept to everyone for a minute or two. Then you paste your paper into an available room/time slot and after everyone is done pitching the voting begins. People walk up to the wall (see picture) and if they like the concept they put a mark on the paper. This allows the organizers to shuffle presentations between small and large rooms based on interest and if no one voted for your topic you can gracefully cancel.

Here are the topics that were presented this year:

• HTML 5 Discussion
• Power Present in 15 Minutes
• Learn how to Juggle
• Secrets of Effective Nomading
• Recommender Systems: Lessons Learned
• Free: Profit Killer, Inevitable, Necessary, or all of the above
• Static on the Line: How to handle feedback
• Server side Javascript with Dojo
• Palm Pre: Development for noobs
• Potpourri for $500
• Bughouse (a chess variant with two boards and four people)
• Polyphasic Sleep Q&A
• The Intersection of Usability, Accessibility, and SEO
• Building your A Team
• Rapid Return on Investment: Achieve 12 month break even using emerging technologies
• CALEA: Lawful Intercept
• GeekDads
• Soft Appliances
• How to do Social Networking when there is no "Network"
• What's up with OpenSocial
• WTF is Biz Dev
• Intro to jQuery
• Alternate JVM Language overview
• Polka! - Triangle Vintage Dance
• When things go horribly wrong
• Which Languages and Technologies will be around in 10 years?
• Productivity of a Submariner
• Google Wave
• Managing the performance of servers in a large network... on the cheap
• Webkit Debugger
• How Smart Startups Win
• The Small Business Web
• Zombie
• Self Publishing Roundtable
• Query optimization in PostgenSQL
• Twitter Roundtable

As you can see this is not your typical technical conference. For example, I was exposed to the community of Polyphasic Sleepers for the first time at this conference.

So here are the talks that I went to:

Free - presented by Martin Smith

Marty led a discussion on the aspects of marketing concerned with the niche markets (ala The Long Tail) and with new business models where content/services are offered for free to the consumer and revenue is generated via ads or with premium services offered to the free subscribers.

From a long tail perspective we discussed some of the benefits of business that operates in that market:

Distribution of Risk - Palm is betting the business on the Pre. If it does not succeed the company will probably not survive. If instead of a single product, a company was able to offer a large number of products to niche markets the risk would be distributed. One commenter mentioned that some products (like cell phones or pharma) require a large production to offset the development expense.

Marty mentioned the increasing complexity of the Internet and recommended NonZero by Robin Wright as good background on how our society is evolving to deal with increasing complexity.

Someone else in the room said that the Long Tail principle applied to more than commercial products. She thought that ideas were also finding small niche groups of people. And those people tended to be more passionate about the idea and more likely to take action in the small group.

Rapid Return on Investment - John Baker

That’s right; I was able to get the new material that Chris Hanebeck and I have been working on in front of this audience as a beta test of concepts.

The basic premise that Chris and I have is that one can find projects in a company that can achieve break even ROI within twelve months. We use a combination of out-of-the-box thinking, emerging technologies, and discovery of analogies solutions from other industries to achieve the results. To get a copy of the material I presented go to my website. A few people drifted out of the room during the presentation and afterwards a participant mentioned to me that the examples I used in the presentation (RFID used in the Supply Chain) was probably not familiar to the audience of BarCamp. I am planning on developing a version that does focus on emerging Internet technologies and will be ready for next year.

What’s up with OpenSocial - Dave Johnson

This one was definitely more technical. Dave presented the basics of OpenSocial and the progress some companies like LinkedIn, Google, Ning, and Yahoo are making using the standard to share data and gadgets associated with social networking. The official site has a wealth of information. And Dave has his own personal blog where he covers OpenSocial and other efforts like BarCamp.

With as many companies investing in OpenSocial it would seem that current problems (e.g. poor security) will be solved.

What Languages and Technologies will be around in 10 Years? - Jeff Terrell

Jeff is graduating from UNC Chapel Hill and wanted to speculate with the audience on what languages/technologies it might make sense to invest time in learning. For example, will Ruby on Rails be around for a long time?

This lead to a diverse discussion on a wide range of topics:

• The language/technology will depend on the solution being developed. COBOL is still being maintained on mainframes in banks while C is common on embedded systems.
• The "browser" based interface is likely to continue grow in ability to support more and more applications.
• The browser based rendering engine is complimented by the continued penetration of always available high bandwidth wireless networks.
• The current keyboard I/O may be replaced by gestures or by voice recognition.
• Augmented Reality will become more common (see Layar )

Google Wave - Joe Gregorio

Joe demoed the Google Wave using a couple other members of the audience to mutate the wavlets being created. He also showed how Robots worked (very cool implications) and how Gadgets (using a semi-OpenSocial structure) can be dropped into a wave.

Google wants Wave to be a true replacement for email (and I suspect a lot more) and therefore is opening up the control of its future to Open Source.

The audience (this was the most popular session I attended during the day) asked a ton of questions. For example, how will Wave work for the user on an airplane (assuming they are disconnected) who continues to work for four hours mutating the wave they left the ground with. What happens when they land and resync? Joe explained that the Operational Transforms would be processed and that the wave would be left in a correct state for all users. Joe said Google does not promise that the results are meaningful, just consistent. So there will need to be some common sense applied to the approach. One idea I have for that is since most documents being created by a team effort would have division of labor it might make sense to add an optional check in / checkout protocol. So just before leaving on my trip, I check out Chapter 4 in the wave and when somebody else tries to touch it that person is told to wait till the material is checked back in for common use.

Google Wave is really cool.

So my Saturday at BarCamp was well worth the time and if you have not experienced one yourself I encourage you to jump on the web and see if one will be happening in your location soon.

Learning from Mistakes

I attended a brown bag conference call hosted by the Industrial Research Institute on the topic of "Learn from New Product Failures". Our speaker was Jim Hlavacek, one of the authors of the paper by that name published in Research-Technology-Management. They have had experience in reviewing failed projects at manufacturing companies based on techniques used in the medical profession. In many teaching hospitals, when there is an adverse patient outcome to treatment, the clinical team undergoes a Mortality and Morbidity Conference, where the course of treatment is reviewed by an objective team and mistakes identified.

Hlavacek reported experiences at companies like Intuit, Toyota, and 3M where a regular process of review is built into the engineering/marketing culture.

Under Hlavacek's approch the Failed Product Review (FPR) would consist of the following:

Background

Name of the failed venture

Dates project began and was terminated or shelved

New Venture leader and cross-functional team members

Objective and qualified principal investigators

Inputs

Face-to-face interviews with people who were particpants on the project

Face-to-face interviews with OEM and end-use customers who were involved

Face-to-face interviews with distributors/dealers and/or key suppliers

Obtain all e-mails, business plans, documents, trials, and project presentations

Methodology

Develop timelines and milestones of critical events or decisions

Doucment the unfavorable outcomes with data

Develop fishbone diagrams for the project and processes

Develop root-cause analysis of the fishbone diagrams

Recommendations

What went well for the project

What went wrong for the project
Lessions learned and corrective actions

This approach to learning from mistakes reminded me of some similar approaches I am familiar with. Those of you with a military background may have participated in an After Action Review. This is used primarily during training exercises to understand what happened, evaluate everyones performance, and discuss what could be done better. From the USArmy manual comes a similar outline for an AAR:

Introduction and rules

Review of objectives and intent

Training objectives

Commanders mission/intent

OPFOR commander's mission/intent

Relevant doctrine, tactics, techniques, and procedures

Summary of recent events (what happened)

Discussion of key issues

Chronological order of events

Battlefield operating system

Key events/themes/issues

Discussion of optional issues

Soldier/Leader skills

Tasks to sustain/improve

Statistics

Others

Discussion of force protection (safety)

Closing Comments

The final example is from my experience as a Certified Scrum Master. Under SCRUM a small team produces a product release using a succession of short time boxed miniprojects called Sprints. Sprints typically take anywhere from 2-4 weeks for the team to produce a functional version of the product. After every Sprint the team gets together for a Restrospective Meeting. In this meeting the team discusses the following:

What worked well last Sprint that we should continue doing?

The practices that worked well during the previous Sprint should be identified and continued in the coming Sprint.

What didn’t work well last Sprint that we should stop doing?

The team or customers should identify practices that worked against the team during the last Sprint and focus on stopping those things during the next Sprint.

What should we start doing?

The team identifies practices that should be implemented during the coming Sprint that will help them work better together.

Out of this discussion comes a list of actions that the Scrum Master captures and and is responsible for implementing during the next Sprint.

So lets compare/contrast these three approaches:

1. The FPR is conducted when things go wrong. The AAR and Retrospective occur for all outcomes.
2. Both the FPR and AAR require the participation of one or more objective reviewers. The Retrospective depends on the team and, sometimes, invited guests.
3. The FPR and AAR both use detailed analysis to find root causes. The Retrospectice is more adhoc.
4. The AAR assumes that particpants will change behavior based on issues being surfaced, the FPR has a deliverable of lessons learned but no clear followup for change, and the Retrospective has a set of actions with the Scrum Master responsible for seeing they are implemented immediately.

In my opinion, the key to making any of these techniques work is to have a culture of trust surounding the proceedings where everyone understands that people make mistakes and that for the majority of participants mistakes that are surfaced will not be used to punish them. I say majority, because if the same individual is constantly exposed as making repeated mistakes and not correcting behavior then it may result in termination.

Over my career, I have participated in and led a lot of project/product reviews. Almost always, people are defensive and guarded about what happened. To set the right tone in establishing a review program executives should lead by example, being willing to have their actions reviewed and also demonstrating with their subordinates that mistakes they make are not used to influence annual appraisals.

Pampered Pooch 2

I am a sucker for a "59 Minute Scrum" hosted by Bob Galen. I had participated in one last November as documented in this Blog. Last night the IIBA hosted Bob and I was again a member of a six person team producing a brochure for the Pampered Pooch Day Care. I wanted to get another feel for the team dynamics during the sprints and to compare the results with the last session.

Here are my observations:

1. While the aRTP session was comprised mainly of programmers and the IIBA was comprised of business analysts (duh), there was little difference in the results of producing a brochure. I guess if Bob ran a session at the Pet Care Services Association the outcome might be different.

2. Before we started the Day 2 Sprint, Bob pulled the four Scrum Masters aside and told two of them to go back and emphasize the quality and completeness of the brochure, and told the remain two Scrum Masters to tell there teams to push for as much content as possible in the time remaining. The results were telling. The two teams pushing for Quantity delivered 13 and 8 user stories respectively, and the two focused on Quality delivered 6 and 4 user stories. So teams will listen to the direction of the Scrum Master. Ultimately to have a released product both the Quantity and Quality need to be good enough. So is it better to get lots of 60% quality content in early sprints and then tighten it up all at once towards the end of the iteration? OR do you push for 80% quality content and achieve less content per sprint. A real trade off that the team needs to decide based on coupling/cohesion of the user stories. If the stories have few dependencies then push for the higher quality per sprint. With lots of dependencies you need the total content present to debug and refactor.

Enterprise 2.0 Conference

I had some local commitments so I could not fly up to Boston again (See earlier post on Johnny goes to Harvard) and thought I would miss the Enterprise 2.0 Conference Bummer. Little did I know that these people are trying to practice what they preach. I joined the Twitter stream #e2conf and am getting real-time tweets from all over the conference. Also there is a blog where I can read material from most of the presenters and see the opinions from other attendees.

Finally there is a e2TV video stream of the general sessions and vendor demos.

This morning I participated in the Launchpad contest. Four vendors who were finalists got a chance to do a quick demo for the audience and then the audience voted for a winner via SMS.

The four finalists were:

Bantam Networks - they have a enterprise project workspace that allow team mates to communicate, share info and manage relationships.

Brainpark - they also create a social network for projects. The difference seems to be an engine that suggests to the user people who have skills that might help, docs with info that might help, feeds/links with info that might help.

Manymoon - another social network for developers. This one has a good integration with Google apps and with external participants.

YouCalc - this is a different one... an analytics environment that can pull info from a lot of different sources and present graphic analysis. Also it is a product based on "wikinomics". The apps are created by the user community. If you create an app it must be made publicly available for others to use modify. The data that is analyzed remains private.

So the voting took place (I thought Manymoon was really good) and the winner was YouCalc with 53% of the vote.

As I am finishing up this post I am listening to a demo of Lotus Live from IBM. Last night they won the big Buyers Choice Award for best product of the show. This was a vote by attendees.

This type of virtual conference experience still lacks the level of deal making / networking that can happen in a f2f environment but you can't beat the price (FREE) and not having to sit on an airplane and then that ride in from Logan airport (Ugh).

It's Raining, It's Pouring

I attended a Webinar today where IBM discussed their Cloud Computing initiative including their "Cloudburst" offering. David Dworkin of the Tivoli business unit took the audience through

justifications for going to cloud which included a survey conducted last year of companies that had implemented a cloud application. The top three reasons for going to cloud for these companies was:

1. Innovation
2. Time to Profitability
3. Reduced costs

IBM is recommending that companies first move to internal clouds that reside safely inside the corporate firewall but consolidate various departmental applications. They claim such a move will have following benefits:

• Can reduce IT Labor costs by 50%
• Can improve capital utilization by 75%
• Reduce provisioning cycle times from weeks to minutes
• Can reduce end user IT support costs by 40%

In my opinion it seems Amazon EC2 is more SMB start-ups with quick roll out and low up front costs while IBM is aiming at Fortune 500 with large IT budgets under pressure.

During the webinar the host asked the audience (I did not see how many were attending) a couple of survey questions...

Which best describes your organization's level of adoption of Cloud Computing services? None, but not evaluating. 33.8% None, but currently evaluating one or more services. 27.4% Currently getting ready to trial a Cloud Computing service. 9.6% Limited trial adoption of one Cloud Computing service. 14.5% Currently running one or more crucial set of business tasks through the Cloud. 14.5%

David thought this was a little surprising compared with survey results IBM sponsored last year. He speculated that companies may be using clouds without being aware of it.

What are the biggest reasons your organization has yet to migrate any services off to the Cloud? Concerns over security 38.0% Need to "own" and manage the data center 19.0% Regulatory obstacles 12.0% Management does not see the potential for quick ROI 13.0% No skepticism, just looking for the right solution 42.0%

Of course remember that this population had already self selected to having enough of an interest in cloud to invest time in attending the webinar so these answers do not represent the general market.

Web2.0 revisited

On June 4th I presented my Web2.0 briefing to 21 participants representing 17 companies at an event hosted by Matrix Resources. Matrix offers briefings to its customers as a complimentary service and from the comments I heard as people were settling in for my talk it seemed to be a much appreciated program.

During the event I captured some informal statistics from the audience on specific Web2.0 usage patterns.

As a percentage of participants how many:

Use Wikipedia?- 100% as reader. 0% as author.

Author a blog? - 0%

Use Digg? - 10%

Have a LinkedIn Account? - 76%

Have a Facebook Account? - 76%

Have used Craigslist? - 76%

Participate in Second Life? - 0%

Use Twitter? - 24%

Use Ajax to develop apps? - 15%

So what does this mean? Like most statistics with small samples... not much. But I like to ask people and see if any trends are appearing that are different then the official surveys.

Also during the briefing we had a lot of discussion about how companies developing web2.0 apps are realizing revenue. The table below is my analysis of some of the more popular companies I mentioned in the talk.

I have added this table to my Web2.0 presentation page 32. In general I found that the strategy for most of these companies is to give the functionality away for free and rapidly grow a large user base. As the application matures and more users are locked in they obtain revenue streams through a combination of advertising and premium services.

Johnny goes to Harvard

Last weekend I attended the Deep Agile 2009 conference at Harvard University. This two day conference was put on by Agile Bazzaar, an ACM Chapter dedicated to the improvement of all things agile. Approximately 90 attendees participated in the conference and I thought that this was a very well run production. Kudos to the Agile Bazzaar volunteers and especially Nancy Van Schooenderwoert who chaired the program. 

The links above give the highlights from the events and I only want to add my own observations:

Jack Ganssle represented the non-agile development community and gave several presentations on his approach to embedded systems development. He favors object oriented development and follows Bertrand Meyer's Design by Contract process.

James Grenning was one of the original signers of the Agile Manefesto  He says he attended that event for the skiing but I suspect he had more involvement... He is a strong advocate of Test Driven Development, Pair Programming, and SCRUM. He showed all these elements to the audience but in some cases they were the regular versions without a significant embedded twist.

Russell Hill is a development manager at Key Technologies. He is an advocate of Test Driven Development for embedded and thoughout his presentations talked about his experiences at Key building a reusable set of boards for the various products Key manufactures. This system includes hard real-time behavior developed for an FPGA connected to a Motorolla micro processor handeling the UI and control logic. He brought a valuable perspective to the conference on what is achievable for embedded development using agile.

Here are my notes from a panel session:

In practice how can a HW based system be delivered incrementaly?

James - I don't do a lot of HW dev BUT "is it working?" is a good test.

Russel - Our HW is based on FPGA and has some flexibility. But boards would be developed incrementaly.

Jack - There is a lot of religion in agile.... HW tends to be late and broken.... and we don't anticipate that for SW

Do you expect to modify an embedded system on a 2-3 week sprint cycle?

James - would like visable progress without neccessarily being deliverable

Russel  - Key Technology can turn around a HW change very rapidly (2 days!)

When an embedded system is used for a consumer product who is the product owner?

Russel -  We have thousands of customers, Marketing dept, Field Serices represents the interests of the customer. Nancy - any problems with that. Russel - Sometimes. Only in last couple years has marketing been strong participant.

James - this is an organizational problem (of getting participation)

How to reconcile "HW requires long lead times" vs "Agile is incremental" ?

Russel - Board was not available for a couple years. SW was written to spec and was able to deliver 2 weeks after HW release.

Jack - Up front commitment to HW features and to the schedule is different for embedded.

James - At the beginning of an agile project one needs a vision of both HW and SW.

How do you handle scheule constraint.

James - in agile nothing is negotiable until it is late.

Russel - when we are late our internal customers now about it real soon. Visibility to decision makers is important.

Jack - This is not unique to agile. Quality, Schedule, Features pick any two. Jack thinks features should be unconstrained while keeping Quality and Schedule fixed.

Any experience including HW engineers in the SCRUM.

Russel - intersted but not active daily 

James - integrate early and often. Some teams use HW engineers as customer. One client in Finland does overnight board turns.

For an embedded system can a product backlog include User Stories that target either HW or SW? If so, what does a HW User Story look like.

Russel - We have not done that.

James - if you try it write a paper.

Jack - I think it would be very difficult.

I am concerned about the lack of upfront design. What if a User Story requires a big change?

Russel - we just experienced this with a project that required a substantial redesign. The requirement was given a year ago on an eight year project.

In classic agile the key to development is decomposition of the epic story into slices. How do you decompose in embedded?

Russel - Frankly we struggle getting our HW engineers to think agile but it is getting better. We had one example where a story to eliminate a spurious image required both sensor, hw platform, and sw.

What role if any does architecture have in agile?

James - we work on it every day. Every time a sprint is completed there is an architecture that supports SW completed to that date.

Russel - Some of our architecture is harder to change. 

Jack - Architecture and Design in embedded world is a lot less maliable. Up front design is very important.

Nancy - Some companies have a culture of detail which is driven by politics.

My question was the one about HW User Stories.... I am still looking for a way to weave the EE participation into a high tempo devlivery using agile approaches. I will take James up on his suggestion to write a paper when I have it all figured out.