Author: Lee Kuan Yean

Exiting
I have just come in from a rather hostile meeting. Its purpose was to draw the lines between the role of a developer who has been working on a site for 6 years, and a consortium consisting of my company and a partner company, who are redeveloping the website in question. The rep who led the old developers was condescending from the start. She clearly felt threatened… our three against their two. Or maybe she’s just like that – hostile.

It’s incredible how I can sit through the first five minutes of a meeting without opening my mouth, being treated like I graduated from high school yesterday. Even more amazing is the fact that I quite often get treated like I don’t speak English. In 21st century Australia. In any case, she was rubbishing our solution from the start, unauthoritatively and with very under-developed arguments. To her credit, she did make it difficult for any of us to come back at her – you can’t really defend yourself against a tirade of crumbling poo cakes.

Her next mistake was to say that their company had had clients request to move away from the technology that we are proposing to use, in favour of theirs. Notwithstanding the fact that their solution is sh*t, the fact is that technology shifts happen all the time, for any number of reasons, technological superiority being only one of them. It stank of insecurity, and perhaps even desperation.

I can understand. The client has probably been a cornerstone client of theirs for a while, and they can’t afford to lose their patronage. This is a plight that affects many development companies in Australia, including my company back in its hey day. While I have pretty much broken free of a reliance on one or two clients, many developers do not. It’s always nice to stay within your comfort zone and work with people with whom you are familiar. However the implications of doing this are serious; more often than not, both parties – client and developer – will end the relationship in tears because their fates have been intertwined from the start.

The current situation is a case in point. I am not cheesed at the way the meeting with this woman went (ok maybe a little, but then you would’ve been too) – the theme I am getting at is the fact that she was so reluctant to cooperate; this is behaviour I find extraordinary in any reputable web development company. Wresting control of the public website in this instance was easy… the client was fairly adamant that my partners should just take over. When it was even suggested that the back-end be handed over as well, we were met with a simple “it’s too complicated”.

Never have I come across such a poor reflection of competence – an outright admission of failure to keep a good audit trail. I wager that you would only need to look at their code to see why – I have seen so many solutions arrive on my desk with documentation and annotation scoring a perfect 0, and this solution would probably be one of them.

It’s one of two things, really, and to accuse them of one (incompetence) would be unfair. It could also be that they are acting strategically, locking the client into a relationship such as the one I mentioned above – the intertwined fates. They could hand over all of the source code for the project and it could be as useful as a Brisbane UBD map in Melbourne.

I was accused at one stage of claiming that the client, who was sitting to my right, had failed to do his due diligence before embarking on his relationship with these clowns. I didn’t object, and mumbled “I just find it extraordinary, that’s all”… that the product has been left in such a state of mismanagement. If the fit eventually hit the shan and the client sued the old developers for a piece of crap software, the developers could probably enter a defence claiming lack of due dilligence on the client’s part and get away with it, but I feel the client couldn’t know any better. It’s not like you can find out about true incompetence by any means available to normal due diligence testing.

It is my opinion that this client has either been duped or the developers have not provisioned for record keeping in their time estimates. A word of caution to anyone out there looking for application developers: developers come and go. Your website will belong to you, regardless of who builds and administers it, and it’s therefore up to you to ensure that it is a well-managed piece of intellectual property. If your developer cannot prove that it’s been written in a way that is compatible with your mutual exit strategy, then run!

What should you be looking for?
1. Internal annotation within the code that explains the logic of code blocks, dated and attributed to a developer.
2. Chronological logging which reflects who did what and when.
3. Document libraries containing all associated documents (such as third-party specifications, project briefs, design briefs… with all major and minor versions present).
4. UI documentation – the documents that explain the user interface to the client, and all levels of end-user.
Ultimately, you should trust your developers, but trust them as business partners. Because when you cease to do business with them, for whatever reason, they should be able to bump into you in the street months down the line and comfortably ask how their former project is doing without any ill-feeling on your part or theirs.
July 24, 2007
Words

One of the most challenging subjects I did at university was Systematics, the study of classification and order within the family tree of life… basically what it is that separates, for example, Homo sapiens from Homo neanderthalensis. It was difficult for me because I couldn’t see the point of putting things into arbitrary categories that would not last beyond a few generations.

Fundamentally I feel there is something wrong about the field altogether. Genetics on the scale of whole organisms is continuous and not discrete, even within the species. Nonetheless, classification is the only way that the human mind can get its way around the awesome and infinite scope of life.

We often forget that we don’t – can’t – know everything, that our brains are just not wired to comprehend certain things. So why is it that we keep trying to convince ourselves that there is an end to knowledge when really, we couldn’t know everything even if we wanted to? The end result is that we lose ourselves in a world where we are ruled by words. The judicial system is probably the most potent symbol of this in civilisation. The common example is where someone who should be behind bars is set free on the basis of semantics.

We are so bound by what we say that we forget the power of silence; on a deeper level, being alone and concealed from the world for periods of time gives you a feeling that words don’t matter any more. Because really… they don’t.

Jane Goodall says it with such grace:

I think we live with words. We look at the world around us and we classify everything. If you can see things without words – I mean when this came to me strongly is, a very amazing fly, not just like a housefly but it had golden bristles and red eyes and golden wings, and it landed on my finger. I’m looking at this thing and I thought, “A fly,” and then I thought, “But look at it.” If you take away the word ‘fly’, you get this incredible creature which is part of the whole tapestry and interwoven web of life. Magic. We just – it’s a fly, and I realised how we destroy a lot of the magic in the world by always wanting to label everything. We can’t help it. We just put things in boxes and then we don’t sometimes see the magic.

June 23, 2007
Smiling

In 1974, there was a huge uproar over India’s nuclear testing operation code-named “Smiling Buddha”. When the test was successfully completed, the head of operations called the prime minister (Indira Gandhi at the time) and happily informed her: “Madam, Buddha has finally smiled”.

In the years since, another series of nuclear tests has come and gone causing more controversy and sanctions, but India, I believe, has since redeemed itself by clearly stating its policy on nuclear weapons – that of “no-first-use”. It’s a small step in nuclear non-proliferation, but it is significant considering India is itself a very significant member of the world community. More importantly it shames governments that have much longer nuclear histories but to this day have forgotten their own true nuclear responsibilities in favour of shabby nuclear favouritism. No prizes for guessing which government comes at the top of this list.

I try to avoid making any sort of comment on U.S. politics because I believe I share the opinion of the world in general, and being a citizen of the world (as opposed to being a U.S. citizen) there’s precious little that I can do to change the U.S. political climate. U.S. voters have to take domestic concerns into consideration when they decide on leaders and last week while our esteemed “leader of the free world” Bush was addressing his aged citizens on matters of Medicare, someone piped up with a question. It must have been most uncomfortable for Mr. Bush because he was was forced to change gears in a flash, from insurance salesman to responsible leader. Here’s how he did:

Q Mr. President, there are some — and I guess I would include myself — who have different views about the Indian agreement, because they’re concerned about the effect that the agreement will have on the capacity of India to stimulate its own production of nuclear weapons —

THE PRESIDENT: No, I understand.

Q — by helping them. But I would go beyond that and ask you, while you’re still President, to consider one aspect of this whole nuclear question. I guess I’m one of the three standing — left standing Americans who helped — who did the negotiation of the nonproliferation treaty. And the basic bargain there was that other countries would give up their nuclear weapons if we, the nuclear powers, would engage in a program of nuclear disarmament.

Now, I’m aware of all of the agreements that have taken place. I’m aware of the negotiations that you had with Mr. Putin. The point is that we cannot expect that agreement, that basic agreement to hold if the United States, particularly, goes on acting as — and has the position that we might initiate a nuclear war if it is necessary.

And I would ask you just to think about the time — while you’re still President, taking the one position that only one American President has taken, and that is President Johnson, to consider a “no first-use” policy to help the prospect of nuclear proliferation in the long run.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, thank you. Thank you very much. Thanks for your contribution, by the way. I appreciate it. (Applause.)

Part of the Indian deal is to actually get them to formally join some of the institutions that you helped — your work created. And you’re right. I did do an agreement with President Putin — thanks for noticing — where we’re — both of us are reducing nuclear stockpiles. But I’ll take your words to heart, and think about it. Thank you. No commitment standing right here, of course. (Laughter.)

Hmmm. Articulate. One of very few people who can destroy humanity at whim (literally, physically… not the moral destruction that Australian politicians are limited to flinging about here), he sounds like he’s selling jam at a country fair. The demeanour may be endearing in some situations, not here. I don’t know what drives the man, nor his entire administration, but it’s difficult not to see that U.S. foreign policy is merely a branch of U.S. economic policy. And I guess you need to know what sort of voter he is pandering to.

I’m beginning to think that Republican voters these days are part of a minority who need to feel part of something grand. Who need a small arsenal of AR-15s to shoot rabbits. Who need to drive to the corner store in their 425 horsepower Chryslers. Who think there’s something impressive about being the biggest and most lethal. Why else would they call it the Grand Old Party?

I may not be entitled to Medicare benefits but I do believe that the rest of the world is entitled to a healthcare plan that protects us from being blown to smithereens by another Fat Boy. Mr. Bush, your term is doomed. Disconnect from the voters and talk to us some time about our healthcare plan. Then some day when you get the phone call from the big operations centre in the sky, you can hope to make your very own personal saviour smile.

March 25, 2007
Instructions

Growing up, I had the privilege of living in a household where most of the domestic work was done by a maid. Returning home recently, I met for the first time Sophani, a sweet and caring Cambodian woman who helps my parents with the cooking and cleaning. As it turns out she speaks hardly any English but she tries, and for that I have the deepest admiration. One day while watching someone attempt to deliver instructions in English, I was reminded of one of the oldest stories about Sun Tzu…

When he was a young man and still in the process of writing the Art of War, Sun Tzu was presented to the King by the prime minister because he had heard great stories about his treaties. Wanting to see the Art in motion the King asked Sun Tzu for a demonstration.

“Will women suffice?” asked the King.

“As you wish.”

The King ordered 180 palace ladies to the courtyard where they were divided into two companies. The King’s two favourite concubines were appointed officers in charge of the companies and training commenced. Sun Tzu taught them how to handle light weapons and how to respond to drum beats: advancing, retreating and turning. When he believed that the instructions were clear and the ladies were well-practiced, Sun Tzu summoned the palace executioner and asked him to stand by with his sword. Just to be sure, Sun Tzu explained the instructions patiently and had the ladies practice several more times. He then ordered the drummer to sound the instruction to turn right. Immediately the ladies fell about giggling.

Sun Tzu drew his breath and exclaimed “If rules are not understood and orders are not clear, the commander is to blame”. He repeated his instructions and had them practice twice more and then ordered the drummer to sound “advance left”. Again, giggling.

Sun Tzu looked up at the King on the terrace and explained “When orders are clear but are not carried out, the officers are to blame”. Turning to the executioner, he gave orders to behead both company commanders.

The King was stunned and implored Sun Tzu to spare his concubines but Sun Tzu’s reply was simply that “I have been appointed commander, and a general in the field is not bound by orders from his sovereign.”

The two concubines were swiftly beheaded and two new concubines were appointed company commanders. The drummer now sounded instructions to turn left, right, advance and retreat and each instruction was carried out silently and quickly.

Sun Tzu now looked again at the King and announced: “Your troops are ready for inspection.”

If anyone is interested, ConsortiumWeb has vacancies for admin assistants and palace executioners.

March 17, 2007
Moreton

An hour out of Brisbane is a long way. Quite simply because it’s astounding how much you can do in that radius. Last week Braeside, this week Moreton Island. It’d been a while since I’d gone snorkelling, and I can’t imagine why. All it takes is a short drive to Lytton, $45 for the ferry and plenty of inclination to do nothing at all but relax.

The ferry will dump you right next to the wrecks on Moreton Island and all you need to do is slap on some sunscreen (I can veritably tell you that doing this before you even leave the house will save you much burning and peeling), put on your snorkeling gear and paddle out. All of a sudden you are in another world, surrounded by thousands of living things of all shapes, and colors and sizes. The thing that surprises you more than your curiosity in them is the fact that the fish are extremely curious about you.

Rinse, repeat and stop at some stage for lunch.

I know there’s a lot of controversy about how Moreton Bay is being loved to death, but this is truly a difficult experience to resist. In fact, I’m not even sure how snorkeling at the wrecks is killing the bay… would someone care to explain?

March 11, 2007