eekim.com: EEK Speaks

Wed, Apr 26, 2006

Venture Capitalist Parable #

From DavidBatstone's WAG, one of my favorite newsletters, comes this parable about a fisherman and a VC: (KHE)

A venture capitalist was vacationing at the pier of a small coastal village. A couple hours before lunch time, he noticed a small boat with just one fisherman docked nearby. Inside the small boat were several large yellow fin tuna. The VC complimented the fisherman on the quality of his fish and asked how long it took to catch them. (KHF)

"Only a little while," the fisherman replied. The VC then asked why didn't he stay out longer and catch more fish? The fisherman said he had enough to support his family's immediate needs. So the VC asked what he did with the rest of his day. (KHG)

The fisherman said, "I sleep late, fish a little, play with my children, and take a siesta with my wife. Some nights, I stroll into the village and play guitar with my amigos. We entertain the children with stories and songs." (KHH)

The VC offered, "I have an MBA from Harvard and could help. You should spend more time fishing and with the proceeds, buy a larger boat. With the proceeds from a larger boat you could buy several more boats. Eventually, you would have a fleet of fishing boats. Instead of selling your catch to a middleman, you could sell directly to the processor and open your own cannery. With my advice on marketing, you would ultimately control the supply of product, processing, and distribution." (KHI)

"How long will all this take?" the stunned fisherman asked. (KHJ)

"Perhaps 10 to 15 years," the VC said. (KHK)

"What then?", the fisherman asked. (KHL)

"Then you could retire," the VC replied, "move to a small coastal fishing village where you would sleep late, fish a little, play with your kids, take a siesta with your wife, and stroll to the village in the evenings where you could sip wine and play guitar with your amigos." (KHM)

/business | Posted at 10:30pm

Thu, Apr 20, 2006

Screenwriters on Collaborative Authoring #

I can't believe I'm shilling for TheSportsGuy again, but there's a great excerpt from an interview he did with BrianKoppelman and DavidLevien, the screenwriters for Rounders, on collaborative authoring (emphasis mine): (KGI)

Simmons: Let's talk about the whole "writing as a team" thing. Maybe it's because I'm an only child, because I always think I'm right, because I like getting credit for everything I write (which used to drive me crazy when I was writing for Kimmel's show)... but I can't imagine co-writing ANYTHING creative with another person. I think it's like having two alpha dogs on the same basketball team; it just doesn't seem like it should work. Plus, I would never be able to be productive with someone else in the room -- I'd always end up having sports arguments with them, convincing them to play a video game or make an online wager, getting distracted every time they make a phone call, farting on them when they weren't looking and so on. (KGJ)

And yet, you guys have made a career out of writing with one another. Are you surprised you lasted together this long? Are you like an old married couple at this point? Can you finish each other's thoughts? Have either of you thought about branching off on your own at some point? Or is it like having a fantasy partner in a roto league, where you're actually better off with a second person because you can bounce ideas off one another and talk each other out of the bad ones? (KGK)

Koppelman and Levien: First of all, we have one overriding rule. We've had it from the beginning and it is unbreakable: No PlayStation, Xbox or GameCube in the office. Because we know, with all certainty, that the day we start playing Madden at work is the day our career ends. And you've hit on another key to this partnership's survival -- there is no farting in the writing room. Because, again, to get started with this, is just to invite disaster. So just know if you come to our office and try to fart on either one of us, you're in for a world of pain. (KGL)

Look, as we said above, we've been best friends since we were kids and we've been completing each other's sentences since the day we met (please save the Vito Spatafore inspired jokes, they weren't funny when they were Richard Simmons jokes.). As far as alpha dogs working together, we don't model ourselves after Antoine Walker and Paul Pierce. On good days we try to operate like Pearl and Clyde. Or at least like Chief Jay Strongbow and Billy White Wolf. We have a wealth of shared experiences: we've watched all the same movies, listened to the same music, read the same books. When we write a script, we usually agree on how it should go. If we don't, the resultant conversation generates a better idea. It's true, there's lots of sidebar chatter that distracts from the work. If Tiger wins a major on a Sunday, Monday is a wash until lunch. Also, in contrast to the "no video game" rule, there is always a football around. In fact there have been labrums torn throwing post routes during breaks in shooting. (KGM)

We have each done some individual work: Levien has published two novels and Koppelman's a widely published essayist. But filmmaking is a collaborative process and our collaboration starts right at the beginning. Frankly, you're thinking about this all wrong, worried that someone else might get credit for a laugh you created. When you left Boston you were a man. Now, LA has made you Johnny Fontaine-soft. ACT LIKE A MAN! Imagine how productive you'd be if you had a partner. And as far as us sharing credit for lines goes, you know, Simmons, which one of us wrote that last line. But we're happy to share the credit/blame. In fact, none of our favorite lines are our own, they are always the other guy's. (KGN)

/collaboration | Posted at 5:07pm

Wed, Apr 19, 2006

Recent Dialog Mapping Lessons #

On the HyperScope mailing list, JeffConklin recently asked how we were using Compendium for the project. We've been using it for the design phase of the project, walking through scenarios, capturing requirements, and developing specifications. I started the process by developing a template for the project -- loosely based on previous projects -- and by seeding the map with content from asynchronous sources. (KFU)

I first presented the map at our weekly face-to-face meeting two weeks ago, and it's continued to be the centerpiece for our discussions ever since. Other than the initial seeding and nightly refactoring, all of the content was generated during these group meetings. After each refactoring, I would post new versions of the map to the web. (KFV)

Now that we've basically completed the scoping process, I'm going to convert the map into a design document (on Augment!). Compendium isn't scheduled to make a reappearance at our meetings anytime soon, but you can be sure that if the need arises, I won't hesitate to break it out. (KFW)

A few years ago, I published a case study on DialogMapping that described my early work in this area. I've continued to apply a lot of the lessons learned from those very early experiences. Here are some standbyes: (KFX)

Take breaks (KFY)
AvoidYesNoQuestions (KFZ)
Multiple maps are your friend. When a map grows too large, (take a break and) make a new one. (KG0)
The map should be another participant in the meeting. The physical location of the map is critical to its success. (KG1)

Here are some new and old thoughts on DialogMapping based on my most recent experience: (KG2)

The fact that so many early lessons are still relevant should be further encouragement for people to give DialogMapping a try. The first few times I did it, it was hard. Once I took those first lumps, however, I shifted into an expert usage very quickly. Once you've gained this experience, the tool is invaluable. (KG3)
In that early paper, an observation I made without comment was that I rarely used Argument nodes (Pros and Cons) in my early maps. Over the past five years of using Compendium, that pattern has held true. However, when I have used Arguments, they tend to be Pros rather than Cons. With the HyperScope map, I used Cons much more frequently. This reflects the circumstances of the project. We're replicating an existing implementation that all of us agree is fantastic. We also have a very tight schedule. Most of our discussions have centered around implementation difficulty and desired constraints, and so naturally, things tend to be framed as Cons. (KG4)
I think that a low percentage of Argument nodes in a map indicates expert usage. In meetings, Arguments are often a reflection of group politics rather than of logic. Reframing Arguments as Questions and Ideas depoliticizes the discussion. (KG5)
When I first start using Compendium with a group, I never explain the tool. I just use it. People find it very natural to follow (assuming you've positioned your SharedDisplay properly), and they often take ownership of the map very quickly. The one thing I do find myself explaining on occasion is that an Idea is just an Idea. It is not a decision, and its presence indicates no value other than that someone in the group proposed it (which is not to be underestimated). (KG6)
You know the process and tool are working when participants start saying, "Make sure you capture that," or, "Can you put that there?" It's a sign that they consider the map a participant and that they are taking ownership over its content. It also makes the facilitator's job easier. (KG7)
The resulting map is an artifact of the discussion, and as such, it's more useful for participants than it is for nonparticipants. Folks like the fact that the maps are available, but they don't recognize the value until I walk through the map with them. More importantly, those who have participated in the meetings (and hence, the map's development) have found it extremely useful. (KG8)

Here are some new and old thoughts on Compendium, the tool: (KG9)

Compendium calls Idea nodes "Answers." I understand the logic behind this, but I think "Idea" is a superior framing. This is partially captured by the fact that the node is represented by a light bulb, but I'd still like to see the name changed back to "Ideas." (KGA)
I used Decision nodes a lot for this project, which was natural, since this was a scoping exercise. I also made a big show every time I created a Decision node. This shifted us away from discussion mode, which may sound obvious, but it had a powerful effect on group participation. It was a group acknowledgement that we had captured the relevant issues and that we were ready to move on. (KGB)
After the last Compendium workshop, I resolved to add some VisualModeling? techniques to my Compendium usage. I've managed to incorporate it a bit in other projects, but it hasn't been useful at all for this project. I love the idea, but Compendium isn't optimized enough for this kind of usage for me. (KGC)
Compendium still has some subtle but annoying bugs, mostly related to layout. MichelleBachler? has done a great job of stabilizing and improving the code, but the project could definitely use more development resources. (KGD)
My number one most desired feature: A slider bar that cycles through previous versions of your map. It should work with exported maps too. (KGE)
Speaking of exports, using Compendium to work on the HyperScope really emphasizes the utility of things like granular addressability and applying viewspecs on a single document, features that don't currently exist in exported maps. (KGF)

/collaboration/tools | Posted at 4:37pm

Tue, Apr 11, 2006

Killer Programmers #

When I worked at DrDobbsJournal, I half-jokingly proposed creating baseball cards for programmers. Why should kids be limited to trading AlbertPujols and EricGagne cards, when they could trade a 1998 LarryWall for a 2000 GuidoVanRossum? (KF7)

I still think it's a good idea in theory, but in the meantime, check out this killer quiz. I scored an 8 out of 10. Thanks to BradNeuberg for spotting this. (KF8)

/tech | Posted at 2:18pm

Wed, Apr 05, 2006

01:02:03 04/05/06 #

Thanks to RichardGabriel for pointing out this historic timestamp on the HillsideGroup mailing list. Although this is a once-in-a-lifetime event for us Americans, GerardMeszaros? pointed out that Canadians won't celebrate this date and time for another 29 days (May 4, 2006). (KER)

/personal | Posted at 1:02am