I'm ready for more input now

My manager had our team read "StrengthsFinder 2.0" (best-selling management/self-improvement book) this week and take its associated online assessment test. Apparently, one of the higher-ups at the company has bought into the general philosophy of the book, which is to focus on developing your strengths instead of fighting the uphill battle of improving your weaknesses (this has the implicit maxim that you will end up working with others with strengths that complement your own). And, so, our group is the first of many that will go through the process..

I made some time today, did the required deed(s), and received a report proclaiming "my top 5 strengths/talents", in order:

1. Input - craving to know, collect, and archive information
2. Relator - enjoy close/deep relationships with others
3. Individualization - intrigued with unique qualities of others
4. Learner - great desire to learn and continuously improve
5. Analytical - searches for reasons/causes and identify patterns

The full report is about 10 pages of content that expounds on each talent with a set of "Personalized Strength Insights", which basically means that it takes into account all your other quiz-determined talents when it frames and provides commentary on the current one. Plus, it provides some short real-life anecdotes from other folks who fall into the same categories as you, which brings some "life" into the report (i.e. making it easier to relate to this personality assessment business). Finally - and this is where this book/system *might* have some value - it provides quite a few action items to reinforce your best qualities.

Yes, self-reflection is generally good.. but only if it leads to action for improvement!

Of course, you could get this information from other books, personality tests, and other self-assessment systems (and so I'm not going to be evangelicalizing this one in particular), but I can at least say that this method is relatively painless in that you only have to give it about an hour or two of investment up front (not counting your follow-up action items). And, for the most part, it seems to be pretty spot-on.. inasmuch as these general personality tests can be.

This coming week, my coworkers and I are getting together to discuss our individual results and see if we can use the information improve our execution environment (i.e. who does what, and how) and general team dynamics. Again, it's this type of *action* that - who knows - might make this diversion all worthwhile.

If the session with my work teammates, um, blows my mind, I'll probably write a follow-up; probably. haha. In the meantime, if you'd like to see my full report (pdf, natch), let me know; we'll learn a thing or two together.

Implications of my grammatical construction

As I alluded to in a previous post, my work was sending me to Beijing to present a few days of training to our colleagues in Asia; some of my US-based coworkers and I have been developing a ton of new material over the past couple of quarters. In fact, I was supposed to leave tomorrow!

And as the grammatical construction of the above sentences is implying - "was" this, and "was" that - my trip, as of this morning, is canceled. Really, what the f'?!

It's funny, I've been so blasé about the prospect of this Asian junket, even as I bought the plane tickets (about a month ago), been visiting the Chinese Consulate here in San Francisco, and doing final preparations with the training material. I think this odd attitude was a result of the combination of things being so well for me here at home - climbing and cycling, meeting new people and rockin' mad concerts, etc. - and the fact that China has never really been high on my travel radar for some reason. Well, at least, I haven't been interested in the major east coast cities of China, like Beijing, Shanghai, or Guangzhou; however, I do have some passing interest in some of the "wild west", like hiking in the Tien Shan mountains or taking photographs of the oilfields around Korla. But those latter musings are not really here, nor there (for now).

In any case, the short version is that I've been, of course, ready to go from a personal and professional standpoint, but not really "excited" about going. But it still feels weird (i.e. not cool) to have the official word that I *can't* go. You see, after a month of efforts, I couldn't get a Chinese visa in time for the trip.

I'm not interested in laying out the entire timeline of snafus, but suffice to say that it's rooted in mad bureaucracy and unfortunate coincidences. In fact, as of yesterday, I finally have all the necessary paperwork (err, well, I think I do - they changed the rules on me for business visas mid-process the other week), but the Chinese visa office is closed until Monday for a Chinese holiday. Go figure.

Yeah, so, if everything went perfect at the Consulate, I *could* - theoretically, anyway - get 1-day turnaround on my visa application and be in Beijing 5:20AM Wednesday morning.. which *is* in time for 3 solid days of work (vs. the originally-planned 5), but my manager deemed this alternative too much of a risk, given my trackrecord with the Consulate thus far. Instead, my other coworker on the trip (there were two of us) is going to do all the training by herself.. yikes!, for her; it'll be pretty stressful.

It's fine that it worked out this way, of course, but too bad; it's been a (medium/minor) bummer on my morning. For now, maybe I can shake off the bad taste in my mouth from this experience, read up a little more about the country, and make my way over there one of these days, for work or otherwise. In the meantime, I'll have to find my Gold Tips closer to home.

Get creative, counter-intuitively

I'm in Boston - well, closer to Worcester, actually - this week for some work-related training and, in referring to some new technology (UEFI) being better then some old technology (BIOS), one of the instructors said:

"You could never innovate (with the old technology) because you didn’t know what the bounds of compatibility were."

Specifically, he was referring to the fact that the old technology did not have very many industry-wide rules about how an engineer was actually supposed to build the system - a system that needed to interact with many others. And this meant that most designers were afraid to go outside the bounds of legacy implementations because they did not want to be incompatible with everyone else's.

I mean, you'd think that such an open system would be filled with all sorts of creative whimsy, but that certainly did not pan out here; inertia took over and basically the same computer code was being used over and over (and over - decadesworth). Pretty counter-intuitive, huh? That's not to say the opposite - total micromanagement - leads to good design or seamless collaboration (quite the opposite.. another discussion altogether), but, still, one could better say that a proper framework and set of agreements up front might be a better approach to "free your team's thinking".

And that is exactly what Stanford professor and Aspen Institute consultant, Chip and Dan Heath, respectively, argue in their book "Made to Stick: Why Some Ideas Survive and Others Die". While I, *ahem*, haven't read the book, they did write about this particular topic in a Fast Company article a few months ago:

Get Back In The Box
By Dan Heath and Chip Heath
Published December 2007

The authors mention a few specific instances of when and where a "well-constructed box can help people generate new ideas", but I liked this one the best:

"Improv actors are taught to be specific," (Keith Sawyer, author of the insightful book 'Group Genius') says. "Rather than say, 'Look out, it's a gun!' you should say, 'Look out, it's the new ZX-23 laser kill device!' Instead of asking, 'What’s your problem?' say, 'Don’t tell me you're still pissed off about that time I dropped your necklace in the toilet.'" The paradox is that while specificity narrows the number of paths that the improv could take, it makes it easier for the other actors to come up with the next riff."

It seems most minds work best when there are agreed-upon reference points to jump off of. Interesting observation, for sure. And so next time you're having trouble being creative - and this is a process that may happen subconsciously for some - try being more specific in your questions. For example, instead of asking, "How can we improve our business in 2008?", try, "How can improve the customer experience?; how can we provide everything the customer would need to be successful before they have to ask for it (and therefore improve our business in 2008)". There are certainly other ways to ask those more specific questions, but I think you get the idea (or at least you will after reading the article).

The approach seems to be all about demystifying complex systems and asking people to make smaller mental leaps towards solutions. In any case, it may not be the right course of action *every* time, it's nice to have these new options in your mental toolbox.

On a related note, the NYTimes published an article last month on some of the, again, counter-intuitive, reasoning that goes into making decisions; some research concluded that "people are willing to pay a price to avoid the emotion of loss". So, people try to keep as many options open as possible - where removing options from the table seems like a "loss" - even if the very act of keeping all the (sometimes conflicting) options open means a decline in the overall quality of life or work, or both. Read on:

The Advantages of Closing a Few Doors
By John Tierney
Published: February 26, 2008

Both articles are worthwhile reads, maybe for debate over this Easter weekend?

Looking to get Gunky next weekend

I've been going out of town a lot the past couple of weeks - for both work and holiday. All good stuff. And I'll be continuing the habit this coming week on a work trip to Boston.

Afterwards, the plan is to drive down to NYC for the weekend, meet a friend of mine, and do some climbing just north of the city at The Gunks; I have been wanting to get more outdoor climbing under my belt and the opportunity seems perfect (if the weather is good enough, that is).

We discussed the logistics for this adventure (and will probably come down to some last minute decisions) and I suggested that we camp near The Gunks Friday night, climb all day on Saturday, then drive back into NYC Saturday night; I'll fly back to SF Sunday afternoon. Sounds good, but - man-o-man - I'll have to bring a tent, sleeping bags, headlamps, etc. - the whole 9 yards of gear, so to speak - just for ONE night of early (early!) spring camping on the East Coast (plus mine and my friend's climbing gear). Still, even though it seems a little silly, I said: "what the hell"; I'm willing to haul that garbage out from San Francisco and do it up in comfortable(ish) outdoor style.

But my friend reminds me - did I mention this is a guy I met at BOSS last May? - that "wtf [sic] do we camping gear for? didn't [sic] we drop a crap load of money last year to learn how to handle ourselves w/o such pansy creature comforts?" True 'dat.

But he also goes on to say, "sleeping bags are nice".

And I couldn't agree more. haha. That is, it's nice to know that I can - physically and mentally - handle myself in a survival situation with minimal gear (think: no sleeping bag, no tent, no backpack, no food), but I will be the first one to tell you that I still prefer the option of using straightforward, good-quality, modern gear, given the choice. No doubt. (And, like, duh.)

Mind you, *my* version of camping - 0 degree down bag et. al. - is still another person's worst nightmare of sleeping on the ground, eating minimally, and hiking mad distances, but, shoot, I wouldn't have it any other way. I mean, the rest of the time I'm in my most preferred environment - well-stocked fridge and hot shower close at hand - so I'm willing to rough it every once in a while. ;)

In any case, I might get a chance to do some outdoor climbing *this* weekend, much closer to home at Mount St. Helena, but here, too, we're still at the mercy of the weather, chance of rain in the forecast and all. She's the boss! And if it's a no-go, there *is* always the gym (at least until the big one hits and our indoors become our outdoors).

The difficulties of multiple brains

More and more, all the little computer brains inside our laptops, in our communication equipment, and even in our handheld devices have multiple execution units in them. In other words, the tech guys that make these things have taken, say, two separate computer processors and stuck them into one chip.. and do it in a way that's cheap enough to put these powerful computing platforms everywhere now. As they say, this trend is the (foreseeable) future..

That said, this technology isn't particularly new (it goes back decades, in fact), but what *is* new is their proliferation into everyday devices. Sounds good, right? Well, for the end-user (i.e. you and me!), it is, for sure. This sort of computer architecture makes some really neat applications possible - in ways so much cheaper than the solutions available before. And *we* don't have to worry about what's going on underneath the covers, so to speak, as long as "it works"; we let the engineers and programmers and the rest of the geeksquad take care of that (amen).

But for them, this new development environment can be a nightmare!

You see, to make the best use of the multiple brains on these new computer chips, they have to figure out how to break up their programs (i.e. what they want the computer to "do"), and partition this work across all available resources. And this is a logistical problem that is, for the most part, easier said than done.

Yesterday, the NYTimes published an article about this very topic:

Faster Chips Are Leaving Programmers in Their Dust
By John Markoff
Published: December 17, 2007

It caught my eye because part of my job is to help our customers make the best use of these multiprocessor devices (i.e. my company sells such things), specifically for embedded and communication products. As the article implies, it is a new field of study and development - at least for the mainstream - and, therefore, no one solution is well-established. In fact, there aren't really that many experienced engineers doing this sort of thing right now; the industry has asked all these folks to get-with-it pretty abruptly.

Luckily, I've been doing this bit for a long time now (think: 1999!); as I mentioned, this isn't new technology; I used to work with some network processors that were pretty advanced for their time.. and, in some ways, more powerful than the mainstream stuff I work with now. More importantly (for my career - ha!), the theories are the same, and so I've ended up doing a lot of training and customer talks and so forth the past couple of years.

At a later date, I can bore you with the details.. if you're interested. ;) In the meantime, check out the article; it will give you a taste of what I do at work, as well as a greater appreciation for the advanced technology going into all our next generation computer gizmos.

Living life in parallel

I know it seems like I don't have a job, working from home and all (and updating this blog thing), but the truth is that I do. In fact, I've been working at the same (computer) company for almost 8 years now; who woulda thought?

In any case, the past week or so I've been brushing up on new parallel processing technologies (like Intel Threaded Building Blocks) in anticipation of my next work project. And today I received it: Mentor a team of engineers in China as they attempt to multi-thread Open-iSCSI. Basically, I'll be doing program management, and advising them technically, both on an overall architectural level and on an implementation level.

For those interested, iSCSI is basically a protocol that helps implement network storage over TCP/IP infrastructure. While I do need to study the details of the algorithm (and current implementation of it in the Open-iSCSI project), my background is in both networking, and, more importantly, in designing (and writing) parallel programs; lately, I've been doing a lot of teaching on the subject. In fact, most of my "professional life" had been in supporting (crazy-complicated) network processors, which are able to run up to 128 hardware-based threads at once. Making them all play nice together was a challenge. haha.

But that experience proved to be fortuitous; multi-threaded programming is all the rage now (for computer folks, that is). Still, there is much to learn, so I've been checking out a couple of cool - I use the term within the context of work - sources like the Thinking Parallel blog, the Blogs@Intel (specifically under "Research@Intel" and "Intel Software Network Blogs") and the TechRepublic blogs.

While you may not be interested in the actual details of writing multi-threaded software (some days I'm not either - ha!), you may find the analytical method - looking at a problem from this different perspective - curious, and, maybe, even provocative. In these situations, you now have many entities working towards a common goal, but since they are independent for the most part, you'll find unintended consequences galore, including, but not limited to, one stomping on another's set of resources, ruining the whole operation. Again, it's a difficult problem to get everyone to play nice sometimes - especially as the numbers involved go up and up and up.. even if all have the best intentions in mind. And this is a lesson that has application much beyond the computer world..