Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [scrumdevelopment] Stories and Algorithms

Expand Messages
  • Ron Jeffries
    ... +1 Ron Jeffries www.XProgramming.com Here is Edward Bear, coming downstairs now, bump, bump, bump, on the back of his head. It is, as far as he knows, the
    Message 1 of 16 , May 1, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      On Monday, May 1, 2006, at 3:18:59 AM, Steven Gordon wrote:

      > Just passing the more complex problems to the non-agile approaches is
      > a cop-out which will make it too easy to just not try to tame our
      > complexities.

      +1

      Ron Jeffries
      www.XProgramming.com
      Here is Edward Bear, coming downstairs now, bump, bump, bump, on the back
      of his head. It is, as far as he knows, the only way of coming downstairs,
      but sometimes he feels that there really is another way, if only he could
      stop bumping for a moment and think of it. And then he feels that perhaps
      there isn't. -- A. A. Milne
    • Ron Jeffries
      ... Yes ... but if this is true, odds are that Mike s problem is not one that shouldn t be done in iterations. ... That s interesting. I ve never seen an
      Message 2 of 16 , May 1, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        On Monday, May 1, 2006, at 5:24:19 AM, Steven Farlie wrote:

        > I agree with all the things that you just said and I would never advise
        > people to just cop-out on the tough stuff. Iterative development has been
        > proven to be extremely effective in many situations. But I would never
        > advise people to use it in *all* situations, just 99.9% of them.

        Yes ... but if this is true, odds are that Mike's problem is not one
        that shouldn't be done in iterations.

        > I have worked on algorithms before and they are quite unlike "normal"
        > business software. They tend to have an innate complexity that appears
        > quite irreducible. They are usually easy to test, in that they give right
        > or wrong answers, but also difficult to test, in that the answer may take
        > weeks or months to come out. If you are lucky you will have one person in
        > your team that actually understands the problem and can work the solution.

        That's interesting. I've never seen an algorithm that was
        irreducible in that way, at least at the scale of an iteration. In
        order to be written up at all, algorithms seem to need section-,
        paragraph=, sentence-equivalents, so that people can understand what
        they are.

        > So I would advise Mike (though I don't really know the problem) to isolate
        > the algorithm into it's own sub-project and give it to your resident
        > genius. Leave the algorithm as a black box in the main project. It may
        > seem unbelieveable to some, but many projects succeeded without
        > iterations.

        Of course projects succeed without iterations -- at least without
        formally recognizing that they have them. (In all the successful
        non-iterative projects I've seen, there were a kind of development
        "phases", where the team worked on this stuff for a while, then that
        stuff. Selected work, iterative in that sense, but not sliced into
        fixed time-boxes. There may be exceptions to that as well.)

        I'd like to know more about the situation, and the algorithm, before
        releasing the team from the time-boxes ... especially if they're on
        one-month or two-week iterations.

        Ron Jeffries
        www.XProgramming.com
        Adapt, improvise, overcome.
        --Gunnery Sergeant Tom Highway (Heartbreak Ridge)
      • mpkirby@frontiernet.net
        ... It s a process control stability algorithm. Basically, the physics of the problem will cause setpoints to drift to a point where the closed-loop feedback
        Message 3 of 16 , May 1, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          On 30 Apr 2006 at 23:02, Ron Jeffries wrote:

          > > The results are read, and are used for a fairly complex
          > > multi-step algorithm that produces
          > > control files for our device.
          >
          > Who's asking for this algorithm? Why do they want it? What will they
          > get when it's done that they don't have now? How will they know it's
          > done?


          It's a process control stability algorithm. Basically, the physics of the problem will cause
          setpoints to drift to a point where the closed-loop feedback controls no longer work. This
          does an off-line analysis of additional data such that the setpoints are adjusted and the
          closed-loop feedback algorithm works again.

          There are final tests (faults, etc) that are run on the device when the complete algorithm is
          delivered (absence of faults will mean it works). Of course, these faults are useless for
          partial deliveries.

          I think I need to sit down with those who understand this problem in more detail then me
          (customer surrogates in this case), and go through the algorithm in a bit of detail. I suspect
          that will illuminate it a bit.

          Mike


          ---
          mpkirby@...
        • Steven Farlie
          ... Once again I must concede to you Ron. (But one day, when you least expect it, I ll be there. And then... the list shall be mine!!) -- Steven Farlie
          Message 4 of 16 , May 1, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            On Mon, May 1, 2006 8:12 pm, Ron Jeffries wrote:
            > <snip!>
            >
            > Of course projects succeed without iterations -- at least without
            > formally recognizing that they have them. (In all the successful
            > non-iterative projects I've seen, there were a kind of development
            > "phases", where the team worked on this stuff for a while, then that
            > stuff. Selected work, iterative in that sense, but not sliced into
            > fixed time-boxes. There may be exceptions to that as well.)
            >
            > I'd like to know more about the situation, and the algorithm, before
            > releasing the team from the time-boxes ... especially if they're on
            > one-month or two-week iterations.
            >
            > Ron Jeffries

            Once again I must concede to you Ron.

            (But one day, when you least expect it, I'll be there. And then... the
            list shall be mine!!)
            --
            Steven Farlie
          • Ron Jeffries
            ... Cool. ... I want to know this to understand whether the customer for this is the regular PO, or whether they are proxying for someone else. This will
            Message 5 of 16 , May 1, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              On Monday, May 1, 2006, at 6:54:20 AM, mpkirby@... wrote:

              >> Who's asking for this algorithm? Why do they want it? What will they
              >> get when it's done that they don't have now? How will they know it's
              >> done?

              > It's a process control stability algorithm. Basically, the physics
              > of the problem will cause setpoints to drift to a point where the
              > closed-loop feedback controls no longer work. This does an
              > off-line analysis of additional data such that the setpoints are
              > adjusted and the closed-loop feedback algorithm works again.

              > There are final tests (faults, etc) that are run on the device
              > when the complete algorithm is delivered (absence of faults will
              > mean it works). Of course, these faults are useless for partial
              > deliveries.

              > I think I need to sit down with those who understand this problem
              > in more detail then me (customer surrogates in this case), and go
              > through the algorithm in a bit of detail. I suspect that will
              > illuminate it a bit.

              Cool.

              I asked:

              >> Who's asking for this algorithm?

              I want to know this to understand whether the customer for this is
              the regular PO, or whether they are proxying for someone else. This
              will change my view of how to split the story.

              >> Why do they want it?

              I want to know this because there is some kind of benefit to the
              story. I'd like to dig into that benefit to understand whether
              partial benefit can be provided with partial work.

              >> What will they get when it's done that they don't have now?

              This goes to the question of benefit also.

              >> How will they know it's done?

              This goes to the question of stages of completion. Your paragraph
              here starts to address that:

              > There are final tests (faults, etc) that are run on the device
              > when the complete algorithm is delivered (absence of faults will
              > mean it works). Of course, these faults are useless for partial
              > deliveries.

              I would think that there is more than one possible algorithm for
              eliminating faults, perhaps more than one possible fault type. My
              question goes to whether those faults can be eliminated one or a few
              at a time, staging the release of a partial algorithm. One without
              Foontang-Muffit's correction to the Bachhs-Coutier approximation to
              Ouiseau's description of the ideal luminance curve, or something
              like that. Maybe not exactly like that. Anyway, I'm just probing for
              places to split the algorithm.

              Ron Jeffries
              www.XProgramming.com
              The model that really matters is the one that people have in
              their minds. All other models and documentation exist only to
              get the right model into the right mind at the right time.
              -- Paul Oldfield
            • Ron Jeffries
              ... I m not trying to win, Steven, except in the sense that I feel like a winner when I manage to help. Not looking for concession, but for improved
              Message 6 of 16 , May 1, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                On Monday, May 1, 2006, at 7:04:49 AM, Steven Farlie wrote:

                >> I'd like to know more about the situation, and the algorithm, before
                >> releasing the team from the time-boxes ... especially if they're on
                >> one-month or two-week iterations.
                >>
                >> Ron Jeffries

                > Once again I must concede to you Ron.

                > (But one day, when you least expect it, I'll be there. And then... the
                > list shall be mine!!)

                I'm not trying to win, Steven, except in the sense that I feel like
                a winner when I manage to help. Not looking for concession, but for
                improved understanding all around.

                Ron Jeffries
                www.XProgramming.com
                There is no art without intention. -- Duke Ellington
              • mike.dwyer1@comcast.net
                Ron Perhaps the reason I share your position on the value of a weeks worth of work is the notion that after a week we now have that much more information about
                Message 7 of 16 , May 1, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  Ron
                  Perhaps the reason I share your position on the value of a weeks worth of work is the notion that after a week we now have that much more information about what the problem isn't.
                   
                  --
                  Perseverance is not a long race; it is many short races one after another. ~Walter Elliott, The Spiritual Life


                  The greatest oak was once a little nut who held its ground. ~Author Unknown
                   
                  -------------- Original message --------------
                  From: Ron Jeffries <ronjeffries@...>

                  > On Monday, May 1, 2006, at 3:08:10 AM, Steven Farlie wrote:
                  >
                  > > Not at all. I'm saying that you should recognise when a particular process
                  > > is inappropriate for the task at hand.
                  >
                  > > It's the old "when you have a hammer everything looks like a nail"
                  > > problem. Put down the hammer (iterations) and find the proper tool for the
                  > > job. Mike may need to move the algorithm work into a subproject with a
                  > > more appropriate methodology.
                  >
                  > > There are plenty of other methodologies out there. A lot of them worked
                  > > for someone at some point in time for a particular problem. Perhaps their
                  > > problem was similar to Mike's.
                  >
                  > Well ... it's possible that some work cannot be done in iterations:
                  > I even have a couple of candidates in mind.
                  >
                  > However, a focus on finding a way to get things done in small bites
                  > is very valuable for a number of reasons including these few:
                  >
                  > iterations make progress more visible, more steady, and more
                  > predictable;
                  >
                  > time-boxing our work helps us avoid over-engineering, and helps
                  > discover problems sooner;
                  >
                  > frequent integration due to short iterations keeps us ready to
                  > ship and practiced at it;
                  >
                  > short iterations make communications problems between PO and
                  > developers more visible, and correct them sooner.
                  >
                  > I would not lightly suggest that iterations be dropped.
                  >
                  > With respect to the algorithm, I'd want to explore not just the
                  > questions I asked before, which relate to who wants it and what
                  > value they perceive in it. I'd also want to consider the algorithm
                  > itself. Many, if not most, algorithms are modular by nature,
                  > containing phases, approximations, refinements.
                  >
                  > It's hard for me to imagine an algorithm that can't be usefully
                  > attacked in a week, much less in two or a month. No doubt there are
                  > some, but I'd not assume that going in.
                  >
                  > Ron Jeffries
                  > www.XProgramming.com
                  > If it is more than you need, it is waste. -- Andy Seidl
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > To Post a message, send it to: scrumdevelopment@...
                  > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
                  > scrumdevelopment-unsubscribe@...
                  > Yahoo! Groups Links
                  >
                  > <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
                  > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/scrumdevelopment/
                  >
                  > <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                  > scrumdevelopment-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                  >
                  > <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
                  > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                  >
                  >
                  >
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.