Blog slow down

Since returning from holiday I’ve been blogging less - some might argue this is a good thing. I’ve always tried to aim for about one blog entry a week, I think so far this year my average has been closer to two, so yes, I probably should slow down.

So, don’t worry, I’m still here, I still intend to keep blogging but I’m happy to do it at a slower pace - hopefully less quantity more quality.

Several forces are conspiring here to slow me down. First is EuroPLoP is just a couple of weeks away. At EuroPLoP we review writers papers, we tell writers what we think of their work. This means that you have to read a lot of papers before you get to the conference - I’ve read two, I’ve got another four to go.

Again this year I’m running a focus group with Lise Hvatum. This will build on last years successful focus group on Conway's Law and will discuss how social forces effect software architecture.

And just for fun, I’m the Focus Group chair at EuroPLoP this year, so a little more work there too.

The second force that is at play is my book. Regular readers will have heard occasional mention of this from time to time, well, I’ve decided to go for it and attempt to write a book. Actually, this book has been in development to some degree for the last two or three years. With the publication of Pattern Languages of Program Design 5 (yes, the physical copies arrived, hurray! I can hold it in my hands!) I’ve been enthused some more to finish this project.

I actually gave a friend some of the more recently written, unedited, chapters and got some really good feedback so that has given me more impetuses. And finally, when I look at all the material I have I can see that I’m damn close!

I’ve already approached one publisher and I’m waiting for my feedback, I’m trying to see rejection as a good thing, it will help me focus what I do next - but I’m hoping for acceptance!

As if this weren’t enough I’ve got a bunch of other things going on in my life just now which I won’t discuss in a blog.

So, dear reader, I hope you don’t mind if I slow down my blogging just a little bit.

Book review: The Search (Battelle)

While I was in Russia I got to do a lot of reading, in fact, I started The Search (John Battelle, 2005) on the plan to Moscow and finished it a week later on the flight back to London.

This is one of those books that got a lot of publicity last year, silly thing is, the anti-hype person inside of me tends to automatically avoid books that get a lot of hype. So, it wasn’t until one of my colleagues at work, Julian, suggested I read this book that I actually bought a copy, then it took me a couple of months to actually find time to read it. Now I have I’m glad I did and I need to say thank-you to Julian - perhaps in future I shouldn’t avoid books because they get a lot of hype.

The book has two themes, the first is the history, creation and growth of Google, in that it is a book in the mould of Start-up (Jerry Kaplan, 1994) - although its not the insiders view Kaplan gives and which makes that book worth reading.

Second it is a history of internet search, which is itself the history of one part of the internet story from 1995 through to 2005. Here the book is more like Robert Cringley’s Accidental Empires (1992) - another book worth reading.

I suppose Battelle could have written two books, one for each subject and just referenced the other. In parts you do get the feeling you are reading alternating chapters of two books but on the whole this approach works. You can’t really talk about Google without talking about Alta-Vista, Gopher, Yahoo and such, and neither can you talk about search without talking about Google so on balance I’m glad he put the two together.

Battelle thinks search is important, and he thinks search will (is) change the world. His argument runs like this: there is a mass of information on the internet, but if you can’t find it is fairly pointless. Therefore, search is key to leveraging all this information. This puts search, and search companies, in a key position to control the internet.

Although the book doesn’t specifically talk of Web 2.0 it does talk about a key part of Web 2.0 and therefore makes you think a lot about how the web is changing and were it might be going. For this reason alone its a good read and I recommend it. And by telling the Google story alongside this the book is a compelling read.

One of the thing the book has made me think about is the Quaero project. For the first time I understand why the European Union is getting involved in search. OK, I understand why, I understand we might consider search a public good, we might want to avoid the control Google, Yahoo or MSN could hold but as of yet I’m yet to see why we should spend public money on a problem the private sector is actively solving.

One footnote of reservation. Battelle almost exclusively talks about internet search, and his arguments are based on internet search. Unfortunately this does miss a big part of the search story and future, that of Internal search, search within the corporation. So there is no discussion of Autonomy, Verity or FAST. This is market that is important and is going to change in the near future, Oracle have just entered and Microsoft have stated an intention to enter. It would have been nice to see a chapter on this but the book still works without it.

So, in conclusion, The Search is worth reading, whether you are interested in technology, business or just the web in general.

Making sense of Russia

One of the things I try and do in this blog is make sense of the world around me. In fact, I think most of what most of do in life is to try to make sense of the world around us. Making sense of the world is a driver to learning and change.

I spent all of last week in Russia - I won’t go into why, those who know me know why, those who don’t, well....

A couple of days in Moscow then on to Siberia, Novosibirsk and Akademgorodok to be exact. And before you ask, no it wasn’t cold, it was hot actually, 30C a lot of the time.

So, I spent the week trying to make sense of Russia. It is tempting to try and understand Russia as America. Two old adversaries have a lot in common, the vastness of the countries being the most obvious but Russia is not another America and it doesn’t make sense to try and understand it as such.

Its also tempting to compare Russia with European like France, Germany, Britain. Indeed, Russia is a European country, and it shares a common history with Europe, it was Russia that defeated Germany and before that France - on both occasions allied to Britain. True, many Russians, maybe most, consider themselves Europeans but Russia is also different from other European countries - no other European country has a Pacific coast.

Russia has always been different to European and American nations. And in the twentieth century it cut itself off from many developments there. While the forces of markets and standardisation mean that Germany, France and Britain increasing look alike, an in turn look like America, Russia was cut off from this. Consequently it is different.

And as an outside it is always tempting to view a country as “wrong” or broken. Supposedly one of the signs of culture shock is thinking things are broken. Each country has its own forces and priorities. Russia may be different but sometimes these are for the better.

Take for example airport screening. Same metal detectors, same procedure, but there are two baskets for your belongings. This confused me but is actually better. One is just for shoes. After all, shoes are dirty things, why put them in the same basket as a coat?

From a technology point of view Russia is really interesting. It industrialised later and then cut itself off from development and created its own versions of technology o we have Tupolev instead of Boeings. That makes it interesting; some technology is better, some not so good.

It is only 15 short years since Russia re-engaged but in places it looks very, well Western. I think it was William Gibson who said “The future has arrived, its just unevenly spread around.” You could say something similar of Russia. Some places, some shops, restaurants, houses wouldn’t look out of place in London, New York or Paris. But its not consistent, elsewhere you find stark evidence of old-Russia. I think Russia will always look different to western eyes, if only because they use a different alphabet.

On the whole I’m hopeful for Russia. It has its problems - not least the current Government. To be fair, they have a difficult job to do, what worries me is not so much what this Government does but that it is laying foundations that a future administration could abuse.

Still I had a couple of positive experiences. Twice I encountered Russian officialdom. If you believe the press then bribes should have been exchanges. On one occasion the official was reasonable, played by the rules and the situation was resolved as well as it could be and now bribes were asked for or paid. On the second the person concerned stood up to an official who was over stepping the mark and who then backed down.

Perhaps Russia has turned a corner here, or perhaps the western press are just wrong.

Finally, nobody I was with and nobody I saw drank vodka. At least among the people I was with, young, successful - the new middle class - beer was the drink of choice.

I’ve made a little bit of progress in understanding Russia but like the country itself there is much more to explore and make sense of.

Some of my blogging rules (of thumb)

Its a year since I started blogging and I promise to reflect more fully on the positive and negative aspects of blogging. In the meantime, just before I go on holiday, I’ve had a go at codifying the rules of thumb I use when creating a blog entry

1. One blog entry one idea

Not always that simple but what I aim for.

2. Know what you are going to say before you start writing

Don’t ramble. Have a unified idea up front before you start writing. Sketch it out in your head, on paper or on the dictation machine - it helps if you can talk it through from start to end, that also helps keep it short.

Don’t ramble.

3. About individuals: If you can’t say something nice about someone then don’t say anything

Courtesy - an old idea I know, plus you don’t know when you’ll meet in future so don’t be horrid about someone unless they’ve asked for it.

Two exceptions: authors and politicians, they put their head up and expect to get shot at.

Fellow bloggers? I don’t know, Robert Scobie or Nick Carr, they are bloggers who I see as fair game - well, they both have books so maybe they are authors, but people like myself? Like my work colleagues who blog? No, these are ordinary folk, don’t be horrid to them.

4. Don’t change blogs after they are published– especially not the title

If I revised blog posts after the event I’d be here all day revising them. In some ways blog entries are a matter of record. Plus, knowing that you won’t change them helps you focus and think seriously about what you published.

I have changed a few entries within minutes of writing them, just to fix errors (spelling, grammar, logic, word missing) and I changed the title once but it really adds to the time it takes to write and entry so better to get it right before you publish.

5. Remember you next boss could be reading this blog

This cuts both ways: someone could read this blog and decide they want to hire me – unlikely but it could happen, I suppose. Then again I could be in line for a job and they decide to do some due diligence on me, wouldn’t be hard to find this blog, and I could wreck my chances of getting the job.

So, don’t give offence, don’t get too wacky, and if you do say something wacky then explain your self and give evidence.

6. Remember you current boss could be reading this blog

Try to be objective, don’t get hung up on events in the company; yes things that happen in work will inspire thoughts and ideas, try to generalise them and look for supporting evidence outside the company - otherwise it is just a comment on one company.

Don’t talk about the company directly, don’t disclose confidential information, don’t talk about current events in the company (comes from 3 above). Keeps life simple.

7. Remember you colleagues could be reading this

Blogging can be a great way to introduce new ideas to your colleagues but you are also responsible for being objective and not beating up on the company or for giving co-workers (too many) wacky ideas.

8. Don’t write in anger and haste

Yes blog entries are written quickly but I do try to read them through and correct them at least once before they are posted. Sometimes I get wound about something and want to blog it there and then - doing so is a good a relief valve. But, and it is a BIG BUT, don’t post it as soon as you’ve written it. Sit on it, if after a couple of days, when you’ve calmed down it still seems like a good then post it.

I have 2-3 blog entries that have never got posted because after a couple of days I realized they were written in anger and in hast, they weren’t as objective as they could be and they could give offence. Unusually these entries violate one of the rules above - and frequently ramble - so it is best to recognise the need to reflect before you post.

9. Strive for objectivity but don’t get hung up on it

I’d love to be objective but it would take too long, but it would require lots of research... and actually I don’t think true objectivity exists, at some level there is always context and opinion. Still, try to be objective, don’t be too biased, think through your arguments.

Lessons from Germany’s Mittlestrad

Last weeks Economist contained an interesting piece on German exports (subscription required.) One of the things that caught my eye was some of the discussion about the problems in the Mittelstand sector. Not that long ago the Mittelstand was seen as a role-model for how British industry could do better, for example Will Hutton’s The State We're in based a lot of its economic argument on the comparison between British and German on regional industry.

Now things aren’t looking so rosy for the Mittelstand or for other parts of German industry. In fact, sometimes Germany seems to be having a hard time coming to grips with the modern world economy - not so long ago one German minister described private equity investors as “locust.”

There is still much to be admired in German industry and I’m not really looking to bash German industry - or cheerlead for British industry. I’m just interested in understanding and finding some lessons from the predicament of the Mittelstand.

One of the problems highlighted by the Economist last week was that of innovation. True, German companies can be very innovative but much of their innovation centres around incremental improvements to existing products - and in particular quality improvements. This is an engineers dream, reaching for the highest quality product possible but it also means there is less radical innovation and fewer completely new products.

Companies, and individuals, are not producing completely new products, instead they are stretching the existing products. Problem is, when the existing product more than satisfies 90% of consumers requirements does it make sense to continue improving it? There isn’t much more market to take but quality improvements may increase price.

Sometimes pushing on in one direction is the right thing to do. Other times its better to try a different direction.

Part of this problem is success. These companies have had great success with these products so not only do they expect continued success but they see little reason to change their ways.

One of our images of private business people is as risk takers, people who say “Heck, I’m fed up 9-5, I’m going my own way” and accept the risk of starting something from nothing. Its worth remembering for a moment that many of these firms were started in the decade after 1945, at that time there wasn’t much else. The risk for these German entrepreneurs was low, safe jobs in big corporations didn’t, on the whole, exists. Starting a new business was the low risk option.

And there in lies a lesson for many privately held businesses. Once the initial risk has been taken, once cash flow appears and the product has a modicum of success the appetite for risk can disappear. Boot-strapped businesses may come to value predictability, low investment, low risk developments because they place a high premium on being around tomorrow. Since there are none (or few) outside shareholders nobody is going to complain about the lack of growth.

Conversely a business that takes cash from outside investors early on has to meet their expectations, and these expectations are for growth. Since the business founders aren’t playing with their own money they have less to loose by taking a risk on a big new product development, somebody else is paying and they are taking the risk.

In effect there is a specialisation here. The entrepreneur specialises in founding the business, building the company and creating new products and the investor, be they Angle or Venture Capitalist, takes on the risk in return for the reward of profit.

Now, move forward 50 years, those who founded in their business in 1950’s are looking to retire. If they are lucky they have the management talent within their family and they can simply hand it over.

Unfortunately it doesn’t always work like that. Perhaps nobody in the family wants to be in the business, perhaps they aren’t particularly talented or maybe the most talented person is a manger in the business and not a family member. What happens next? How does the founder cash-out?

Again external investors come into play. They buy the business, giving the founder an exit, and they seek out the best person to run the business. And this is what is happening, this is why so many private equity houses are so active in Germany just now.

Unfortunately, this kind of changes the German way of doing things. Suddenly businesses aren’t owned and run by the family. Ownership and management are separated. The new owners have more appetite for risk and want to see some more growth, more innovation and reduced costs. Then, on top of this the investors probably plan to sell the business in 4-5 years.

There is nothing fundamentally wrong with this model, its been operating in the US, UK and elsewhere for a good while but it does come as a surprise to many in Germany, hence the recent debate about the role of shareholders in Germany and the social model over. (A debate I’m not going to comment on, I don’t know enough and it is German’s debate not mine.)

On the bright side, more external investors in German business may encourage more innovation in different directions. With a little luck everyone will end up better off.

Book review: Talking about machines

Talking About Machines is a book I have been wanting to read for some time. It is a study carried out by Julian E. Orr of photocopier service technicians - early 1980’s I think. That might not sound very exciting but the findings are. Basically, Orr discovered that what is important is what the engineers do on the job, not what their managers think they do. Classroom training is OK but you really learn what to do on the job, a lot of it verbally from your immediate team - and this team is more important than the corporation.

If that sounds obvious then maybe it is, but why do we so often ignore it?

Anyway, I’ve been wanting to read this book because references to it keep cropping up. I think I first heard of it reading some of John Seely Brown’s papers - most likely Organizational Learning and Communities-of-Practice but I can’t be sure. (If you haven’t read that paper then do so, if free at that URL so you have no excuse.)

So, a sense of interest and duty lead me to this book. True, it is significant, it is important but... well, it is also somewhat long winded. Still it pulls some important truths about the nature of modern work.

For example: we think of technicians as people who show up, look at the fault, fix the fault. We believe they just do it. In truth it there is a lot more to it than that. For a start, the same technicians have to deal with users of the machine, the social setting of the machine and the inaccuracy of the information the machine gives them.

OK, here’s the truth. I read the first few chapters and the last chapters, I skimmed or missed the ones in-between. As I read it I increasingly felt I was learning little new to add to what I had read in the references to it. Perhaps if I had read more I would have found more new stuff.

Two bits do stand out.

Early on Orr notes that while we may study a problem, we may even train for a problem when faced with it we may fail to recognise it. This rings true, how many case studies did I read in business school were the problem was obvious? Why didn’t the (far more experienced) people in the case study spot the problem and the solution? Why they didn’t notice it was a problem they already knew?

Perhaps you don’t spot the problem because at the time you don’t have all the information you need. Perhaps you don’t spot it because you arr too close to it, or too remote from it. Perhaps you don’t spot it because, well there are any number of reasons. This idea has got me thinking, how many problems I face now are ones I’d know the solution to if they were presented as a case study?

Second, toward the end Orr says:

“The management of the corporation ... has pursued a strategy of de-skilling through the use of directive documentation. This does not actually deprive the workers of the skills they have, however; it merely reduced the amount of information given to them.”

I run across de-skilling regularly, so many company strategies, products or procedures are aimed at de-skilling people, but do they really de-skill? Or are management fooling themselves? Most likely they just shuffle the skills a little.

So many software tools are aimed at deskilling a job, yet how often are we repeating the mistake Orr describes? Rather than invest in tools perhaps we should be investing in people, rather than “de-skilling” them we should be re-skilling them. All too often managers are prepared to invest in a tool but not in training.

(And what of the tool makers? A complicated job may result in a complicated tool, people end up needing training on the tool. Tool makers need to ensure people get this training to use the tool effectively and demonstrate the value to the purchaser. But, if what you learn in the classroom isn’t much use, how are we to train these people?)

Summary then:

Orr’s book is worthy read and has some interesting insights. I’m sorry I couldn’t read it all but it was just too slow. Maybe I’ll come back and cherry pick the remaining chapters - umm... I’ve said that about books before, it rarely happens!

The book shows us that technical work is much about the social environment, learning doesn’t happen the way we like to think it does, and strategies that sound good don’t always work they way we thinkg.

Office, Cubicle or Open plan?

There is a debate that surfaces from time to time about the best way to arrange your office. There seems to be a belief that once upon a time everyone who worked in an office actually had their own office. Maybe this arose because 100 years ago relatively few people did office work and a higher percentage actually did have their own office. Personally I think it is something of a myth.

But still, how do you organise your office space? Individual offices? Dilbert style cubes or open plan?

Each has its proponents, each its detractors and none of them seem to be able to agree.

Some argue that individual offices give you privacy, confidentiality, space and quiet to think in and say that the company values you.

Fans of cube argue that giving everyone their own office isn’t practical but a cube gives you some private space, some confidentiality and at least some space and quiet to concentrate in - how can anyone work in open plan?

Open plan fans usually emphasis the sociability of an open plan office, and how you can be connected to people, hear what is happening, see your colleagues - information flows around much easier - cubes put you in a box and stifle your creativity.

The subject came up in last months book. Davenport notes research that concludes

“Our research, ... , indicates that the more ‘open’ plan office environment, the more conducive it is to overall work effectiveness, when communication and interaction are critical elements of the work process.” Thinking for a Living p. 167.

But, he can’t quite believe it himself and wonders if the need for concentration and quiet is under valued.

The subject was also covered by Knowledge At Emory a couple of months ago, Do Cubicles Help Productivity or Hurt It?

I find both these references flawed. In a word they miss Europe. As research they are flawed in two aspects, first they ignore an alternative source of data and second they ignore culture differences that help explain the effects.

Both the Wharton piece and Davenport’s critique betray their US bias. The thing is, most people I know in Europe work in open plan offices. Over ten years working in the UK I’ve never seen a cube. Few colleagues I know would swap their open plan desk for a cube. Conversely, my two years in California were spent in cubes. I hated it but I couldn’t persuade my American colleagues of the alternative.

I’ll continue to regard all studies of offices, cubicles and open plan offices as flawed until I see one that at least acknowledges that different countries do different things.

My conclusion is: a lot of it depends on what you are used to, changing from one layout to another is more about cultural change than space and information flows.

Personally, I’m an open plan man, yes you get distracted, and need some more quiet - especially in my current desk - but I see people, you have ad hoc conversations and you hear things around you.

Why mention all this now? Well actually, it links up with a theme of the last couple blog entries: software developers as the prototype for knowledge workers in the future...

Software developers, especially those trying Agile development techniques, are increasingly trying novel office layouts - like caves and commons - and sometimes working in pairs - the infamous pair programming.

Software people got there first: Wiki’s, blogs

Web 2.0 is having some fallout in the business world. It isn’t all about AJAX and Google maps, a lot of the other technologies that are broadly seen to be in Web 2.0 are of more general use. Perhaps the one with the most coverage is Blogs but Wikis, RSS, Search and tagging can all be used outside of consumer web-sites.

And I can vouch for this first hand. My employer has been using Wiki’s for a few years, at the moment I’m in the middle of evaluating search engines for the enterprise, today I’ve just set up our internal blogging system and I’m looking at fitting RSS to the website I manage.

I’m actually starting to think that a search engine, deployed in a modern IT enabled knowledge based company, may actually be one of the few example of a technology fix that actually delivers performance improvements right out of the box.

A piece by Andrew McAfee in the last issue of MIT Sloan Management Review entitled Enterprise 2.0: The Dawn of Emergent Collaboration sums all this up in the name “SLATES” - Search, Links, Authoring, Tags, Extensions and Signals.

A similar theme argument is made in this piece by Rod Boothby - although Rod seems to think this means the 20 something’s graduating from business school this year will have an advantage over the rest of us.

Both authors echo Tom Davenport who praises wikis in Thinking for a Living although he’s not sure about blogs. Are blogs an effective knowledge management tool? Do they spread ideas? Capture knowledge? Intuitively, from using them I think they do, but how effective are they? There are a lot of pointless blogs out there.

Davenport also suggests a more subtle use of blogs: to manage ones own knowledge. That is, by recording what we do we have our own knowledge available to us. I think this is true, I know I’ve included links and comments in this blog to remind me of things in future. And, as I’ve said before, blogging is a form of diary keeping; that can be useful in its own right, if it sparks some reflection on our part then it is a great advantage.

The thing is, and this continues my theme from the last entry, those who work in software development have had this technology for several years. I can’t remember exactly when I first came across Wiki’s but it was certainly before 2000. People who work in the IT industry both encounter this technology and know how to use it before the majority of other knowledge workers.

In part this is because they aren’t scared by the technology, they can install a wiki, they think nothing of engaging with the computer; in part it is because they have been closer to the people who developed these tools. Sure, I don’t know Ward Cunningham (the inventor of wiki’s) personally but I do know people who do know Ward personally.

But you don’t need Ward to create a wiki. Once the idea was out there many IT people created their own. In fact, when it comes to all these knowledge management tools software developers control the means of production - to use a phrase of Marx.

What does all this mean? Well, I think it means two things.

First researches can learn a lot from looking at IT people, they are early adopters of these technologies. Is there some new technology IT people are using today that could be the next big thing? And what about the practices and process around these tools?

Second, I think this supports my argument that IT people, and software developers in particular, are at the front of new knowledge working techniques.

Pattern Languages of Program Design volume 5 (PLoPD5) is out - buy it now!

As some of you may know my pattern Encapsulated Context was selected for inclusion in Pattern Languages of Program Design volume 5. Well, it seems the book finally hit the streets in the last few weeks. Its available in the US now, looks like the UK will be next month.

You’ll find Encapsulated Context in chapter 3, this version is slightly different from the online version - thanks to Addison-Wesley’s sub-editing and the editors review process.

So, rush out and buy the book! As for my reward... I get little more than the fame of having chapter 3 of a major patterns book, Addison-Wesley should be sending me two copies. That’s it. Its nearly four years since I started to write the pattern so I think some celebration is in order. I’ll let you know when I get the books and I’ll arrange some celebratory drinks.

Agile software development: a prototype for all knowledge work?

Last week I reviewed Thinking for a Living, I’d like to pick up one or two points raised in this book and discuss them a little further. These are not points exclusive to Davenports work but having just read the book its a convenient focus for these thoughts.

I’m convinced that software developers (programmers, testers, product managers, etc. etc.) fail to recognise themselves as knowledge workers. Worse still, I think those that manage these people fail to recognise them as knowledge workers. So, we get discussions about “the software factory” and we hear managers describe how they can make their “factory” more efficient - as if the developers were working on a production line.

The metaphor continues, too many people in the business are concerned with “process” the idea - taken from Fredric Taylor and scientific management - that if we (the management) can improve our process then the factory will be more efficient, more productive, higher quality and so on.

What those who buy into this way of thinking and talking miss is that knowledge work is fundamentally different to factory thinking. In fact, modern factory thinking is different to traditional factory thinking. Toyota considers every one of its workers to be a knowledge worker - whether they are designing cars, advertising cars or assembling them.

The problem is, that when software developers and their managers ignore the knowledge worker aspect - either by regarding development as a factory process or as something “special” and “unique” - they miss out on opportunities, research and observations presented by the existing body of knowledge on knowledge work.

Davenport’s book clearly regards software developers as knowledge workers. Personally I’d go further, I think those involved with software development - that is everyone: developers, testers, analysts, product managers, project managers, etc. etc. - are not only knowledge workers but they are in the vanguard of modern knowledge work.

Before we write a line of code we need knowledge work: what is the problem? who does it effect? what is the benefit?

When we write code we need knowledge: language, operating system, problem, business, ....

When we test code we need knowledge.

Every line of software code embodies knowledge. Even the humblest for...loop expresses so much about out understanding of the problem, the solution and the domain it exists in.

Sometimes software people are the shock troops of knowledge work: parachuted into hostile territory to replace aging working systems and practises with shiny new technology - no wonder they don’t have many friends! No wonder you want “geeks” who don’t communicate with people, sometimes you don’t want them talking to the people they are replacing.

OK, that’s a little bit of hyperbole and exaggeration to catch your imagination but you get the message.

Now for the interesting bit.

Software people are on the front line of twenty-first century knowledge work. They don’t make it easy for themselves - ignoring much that existing knowledge on knowledge work, learning and change - but they are making discoveries, they are innovating, they are finding new ways of working.

One of the innovations that is transforming the way we do software is agile development and lean software development - I say one innovation because despite the two names they share much in common.

Davenport touches on this a bit, he spends a couple of pages on Agile methods and he quotes Martin Fowler. But he only hints at the true potential here. If, and its still a big if, Agile/Lean can transform software development maybe these practises can be applied to other areas of knowledge work.

What would it mean for a lawyer to work agile?

How would a financial advisor’s work be changed?

A journalist?

And a doctor? - in fact Womack and Jones are already talking about how Lean can change health care. Their recent book Lean Solutions actually discusses this.

Some ideas can transfer immediately:

• Card-and-board “Kanban” systems to focus work
  
• Daily stand up meetings
  
• Team work: break the one person, one task, as long as it takes model
  
• Pairing: why not have two lawyers write a brief?
  

Behind this a commitment to increase our productivity with a focus on value adding work - eliminate waste!

And, underlying all this, the operating system on which the whole thing runs: Continual learning and improvement - the Learning Organization.

Perhaps the future of all knowledge workers looks a lot more like the current methods being deployed by agile software developers?

Or perhaps, software people are just playing catch up, maybe we’ve cut ourselves off and only now are we catching up.

As usual the truth lies somewhere between the two extremes. For myself, I believe the future of all work will look a lot more like modern software development running on LOOS - Learning Organization Operating System.