Books

I'm completing the final course of the spring semester, and I found that I needed to purchase a book. We have too many books in our home: you could say I'm a recovering bookoholic and I try to stay out from book stores. I tend to get out with too many books. It's not that I don't read them: I'm a fast reader and have read many of my books many times, but we don't have the space. The book shelves are packed and beyond.

Using a e-com site takes away a little bit of the pleasure of buying books since I don't get to stroll between the shelves, feel the paper and build an interest. The problem is that you can scroll many more books on a web site. And you find books you never knew you didn't knew that they existed. There is the season for book sales in Sweden, so since I was already buying a book, I just happened to scroll all the titles in the categories which I'm interested in. And some other categories too. Yes, I am a bookoholic. Give me a break. Just reading about them does not mean that I buy them... Not all of them, anyway. But I do recommend anyone to scroll the titles under Finance and law. How about these book titles:

• Private Rights in Public Resources: Equity and Property Allocation in Market-Based Environmental Policy
• The International Sugar Agreements: Promise and Reality
• Start Your Own Pet-Sitting Business
• Behind the Veneer: The South Shoreditch Furniture Trade and Its Buildings
• The Security-Development Nexus: Expressions of Sovereignty and Securitization in Southern Africa
  
• Micro-Regionalism in West Africa: Evidence from Two Case Studies
  

I could just go on. If I click the titles, there is not much details, but isn't it fascinating that there are all these books out there that someone found interesting enough to write and publish. And what is more interesting,, there are at least one bookoholic who was really tempted to buy one or two of these just to see what they were all about. But I controlled myself. So, besides the book for my class and two books which my husband wanted, I just picked up two Richard Dawkins, the latest Umberto Eco, a couple of technical books for little Pete and two books on e-com in the leisure travel business. So, I'm not fully recovered. But I didn't pick up the book on international suger trade.

Retrospectives

If you're not improving: you are getting worse. So, you should always strive to improve. That does not mean that you should always change: an improvement can derive from continuing on a path already stricken. I've seen multiple examples of stuff going wrong and people feel an urge to change stuff, just to make themself feel better - at least we're doing something.

But I'm getting off track - I was going to talk retrospectives. Why do you hold retrospectives? Well, to know how to improve you need to know the current status and how people feel and think about that. Hence, end different periods with retrospectives. The periods can be anything from a meeting to a whole project: if you're having a retrospective over a meeting the retrospective should not take too long while the retrospective after completing a whole project should take it's time.

If we turn to the classic sprint retrospective, I've found that a one hour meeting is appropriate. I make a mental note of 1,5 hours if it was a troublesome sprint.

Then I come prepared: Agile Retrospectives is a good cookbook when selecting stuff to do. But selecting tasks can be a hazzle. My rules are: make sure there's a flow. That you use the stuff from one exercise to the next. This rule may not apply to the check-in exercise.

There are a number of exercises published online but I do recommend the complete book: even if you shouldn't change the exercises every time, you need som change too. I have the rule to only change one exercise at the time. This way there is something new but you don't have to explain everything before each exercise. Explaining an exercise takes away from a much needed flow.

I also include exercises where people are up and running: for example placing postits using Timeline or Prioritize with dots.

And finally: use the last exercise for something positive. Appriciations is the best exercise for me. - ending with everyone saying something positive is wonderful. But make sure that there is not apprications for everyone but one (if it is not called for) - being singled out as the only one not appriciated is not the best way to end a project.

Andy Hunt on how hard it is

Andy Hunt gave, not all unexpectedly, a very interesting and thoughtful presentation. One of the most interesting issues are of course complexity. How hard is it? Well, one thing might not be hard, but many things are. And complexity build exponentially. And therefore it's important to know when to add complexity, or features, or documentation. Or what ever you want to call it.

Is it difficult to write English? Well, I can use a dictionary and translate word after word and each and every word is correctly translated. But the sentence will not be correct. It is often like that with features: it is easy to translate them into code, but when we add more than one feature, they have to work together. So, what do you do when you learn a new language? well, you probably don't start with the most complex sentences, you start small. You start simple. Try it and see if it works.

I can't help thinking about Robert, in the Swedish classic the Emigrants. He wanted to learn English and got a book. He saw the spelling and the phonetics. Guessed which he would use when talking and guessed wrongly. He spent all that time learning all that. For nothing.

Thanks, Valtech, and thanks Mr Hunt, for a wonderful evening and many thoughts to bring home to the guys.

Myths....

I just love myths. They intrigue me. I wish they were true. Love watching Discovery Channel and National geographic's programs on myths. Unfortunately, myths are rarely true. That is, the most amazing one's rarely are. That is so sad. So, sometimes it's sad to read Factoid, a web site dedicated to those myths we all take for granted. It's so often I read about a myth and think: 'How sad, I just wished that was true'. And that is what makes me a skeptic: I don't see the big conspiracy and cover-up just because the evidence points in another direction than I wanted. I can still appreciate a good story, realizing it is not true. And sometimes I wish a myth is not true. Like the myth of HH Holmes of the book I just read.

Storyboards, why? Part 1

On the Chicago World fair 1893, it was decided that the fair would only be open during the summer months. After the fair, all the buildings would be torn down. So, they didn't build for the winter. The roofs, for example, weren't built for snow load. So what happened? Well, even if the fair was in the summer, the buildings took some time to be completed. AKA, the buildings were built the autumn 1892. So, the roofs fell in during the winter before the fair. The whole story wasn't discussed, only the use case.

World's columbian Exposition

What does cracker jacks, juicy fruit, serial killers and hamburgers have in common with picture post cards? Well, you Americans all know that the common thread is the World Columbian exposition. It is funny because we Europeans often brag about how much we know in comparison with Americans. And still, I'd never heard about the fair until I started reading a book on the subject yesterday. The fair was open during six months and during that period over 27 million people attended. And this wasn't yesterday. It was in 1893. This was when USA's population was a little bit more that 50 millions. Simply amazing. It was built in less than two years and was 2,4 sq km. The Vatican is 0,44 sq km...

So, the commonalities. Well, the fair hosted the first cracker jacks, the first juicy fruits, the first hamburgers and the first known serial killer of USA. I never knew that. But should I? Well, the mind behind the project was David Burnham, an in USA famous architect and urban planner with Swedish decent. Being educated as an urban planner, how can I know know that the architect of the first known sky scraper was of Swedish decent? Well, now this hole in my sorrowful education has been filled. And I will now spend some time scanning Google for more pictures from this strange event in Chicago's proud history.

Between a rock and a hard place

You can't write about pain is temporary without writing about Aron Ralstons. Today, I read Between a rock and a Hard place (http://www.aralston.com/). The book is about a climber who during a lonely hike get stuck with his right hand between a rock wall and a stone weighing 500 K. No one knows where he is. He has virtualy no supplies. The hand is stuck. He has two small not so sharp knives. If you follow the link you can perhaps imagine what he did. But still, you can´t. It's not only the carving you know... But he survived.

There is many things worth reflecting on. The most obvious is of course: doing the unthinkable to survive. But it's also about understanding what is important in life. Could you imagine living without your right hand. Sometime is best to let go, to survive. To feel good. Another thing is the concept of luck. Aron's first thought was that he was unlucky, getting trapped. But then he realised that this was just one of those many occasions where he put himself in the position of needing really good luck. He had lost good friends from this. Finally it's about how does one survive, and again we return to luck - LUCK HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. NOTHING.

Pain is temporary....

OK. What is this? The quote is from Lance Armstrong's (www.lancearmstrong.com) book Every secound counts. Most things you want demand some kind of pain. Physical, mental, monetary. You name it. The quote is about the pain that derives from just giving up and giving in. Quitting causes pain. But that is not temporary. You may get a new chance, but that is not the same.

As a long distance runner, the quote has become something as a mantra. Something I tell myself when I want to stop early. When I want to quit. When I want to take a shorter run. When it's rainy. But it applies to many situations in life.

But is it never OK to quit? Of course, sometimes just plain stupid carrying on. Like when I on a half marathon got some severe stomach problems half through the race. I spent some 10 minutes pulling myself together and completed the race. It was hot. I was dehydrated and I didn't drink anything during the remaining race in fear of getting sick again. I also felt I didn´t want to get sick on the sub home so my deluded brain told me to wait until coming home before refueling. Bad idea. Really bad idea. I barely made it home. That was stupid.

But one should never take the will to change for quitting. Leaving a bad situation for a better one does not mean failure or quitting. But what is the difference? Perhaps how you felt about it in retrospect. Dunno.