Check It Out: Micromanagement, TDD, and Nonsense

Check It Out: Micromanagement, TDD, and NonsenseGoodness on the Internets:

An Open Letter to Micromanagers by Scott Berkun.

“Owners of thoroughbreds never stop their horses during a race, every ten seconds, to remind  the horse and jockey how to run, where the finish line is, or that it’d be a good idea to finish first. Why? It would slow them down. Only an idiot would do this…”

and so begins Scott’s letter to micromanagers everywhere. Complete with a link to anonymously send the letter to your favorite micromanager and signed, Hugs and Kisses, The People You are Micromanaging.  I love this guy.

TDD Triage.  Bob Martin addresses a number of questions around Test-Driven Development, hopefully dispelling some of the  religious extremist views on the topic and showing where TDD works and where it doesn’t. These include:

  • Is TDD a replacement for architecture? (Nope)
  • Is TDD a replacement for design? (Not even)
  • Should TDD be used for every line of code? (Usually, but… actually, no)

How Nonsense Sharpens the Intellect. Alright, this is just awesome and reminiscent of Kathy Sierra’s suggestions to insert a little randomness into what we do. A NY Times article explains the science behind why nonsense and randomness actually help us understand things better. And, with that advice, I’ll end this here.


Comments

7 responses to “Check It Out: Micromanagement, TDD, and Nonsense”

  1. crabbydog Avatar
    crabbydog

    Edward de Bono formalised such ideas under the term lateral thinking, and came up with techniques for encouraging us to think laterally.  So for example you might have a brainstorm session to solve a problem, and to make the most creative possibilities you encourage and and all thouhhts, no matter how whacky or apparently unrelated.  By doing this you are encouraging people to think 'outside the box'.

  2. Rudolf O. Avatar
    Rudolf O.

    At the end of the New York Times article, there was a correction posted on 12 November 2009 and it says that there were flaws in the studies cited in the article and that there was no statistical difference in performance of the Kafka-reading and non-reading groups when the studies were repeated.

    It's sad how bad scientific reporting has gotten and it's also sad that people don't take sociology and psychology experiments with a grain of salt.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *