Comments on: Developing a Methodology http://www.myloadtest.com/developing-a-methodology/ Performance Testing with a LoadRunner focus Fri, 19 Feb 2010 17:40:42 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Anonymous http://www.myloadtest.com/developing-a-methodology/#comment-550 Anonymous Tue, 05 Sep 2006 13:23:16 +0000 http://www.myloadtest.com/developing-a-methodology/#comment-550 There is a very insightful paragraph in a <a href="http://popcorn.cx/blog/2003/11/peopleware/" rel="nofollow">review of Peopleware</a> that says: Following that was a signifigant discourse on Methodology (capital M), it was interesting to see comments made about how blindly following the Methodology is often a more effective way for workers to get what they want from management as opposed to a strike or stop work action. There is a very insightful paragraph in a review of Peopleware that says:

Following that was a signifigant discourse on Methodology (capital M), it was interesting to see comments made about how blindly following the Methodology is often a more effective way for workers to get what they want from management as opposed to a strike or stop work action.

]]> By: Charlie http://www.myloadtest.com/developing-a-methodology/#comment-549 Charlie Tue, 05 Sep 2006 13:22:27 +0000 http://www.myloadtest.com/developing-a-methodology/#comment-549 Great story about the ham. I’d say give the team of talented people the methodology itself — the toolkit of things you could do on a project — not the process already culled from that, as you point out, probably for some other project in the past. But my comment implies the need for the whys of things, as you continued to point out. In short, I agree! Thanks for this post! Great story about the ham. I’d say give the team of talented people the methodology itself — the toolkit of things you could do on a project — not the process already culled from that, as you point out, probably for some other project in the past. But my comment implies the need for the whys of things, as you continued to point out.

In short, I agree! Thanks for this post!

]]> By: James Bach http://www.myloadtest.com/developing-a-methodology/#comment-548 James Bach Tue, 05 Sep 2006 13:22:06 +0000 http://www.myloadtest.com/developing-a-methodology/#comment-548 I have found a powerful tool to use in resolving the skill vs. process debate: heuristics. A heuristic is a fallible method of solving a problem. For instance, a hammer in the hands of a carpenter is a heuristic device. The hammer doesn’t guarantee a solution to any particular problem, but it can be used to solve some problems, if used skillfully. Heuristics bring structure to skill, help us manage our reflex behavior, and thus they point the way to resolving the concern many people have about relying on skilled heroes alone. Look at any process document for performing an intellectual process, and what you see is a heuristic. The terrible problem with most process documents, however, is that they enthrone their heuristics. This is the big mistake. Instead, place skilled practitioners in charge and *support* them with heuristics. Train them in the responsible use of heuristics. So, the true process for cooking a roast is (among other things) to bring the roast into contact with sufficient heat for a sufficient period of time, such that the necessary chemical reactions take place. A skilled cook knows many alternative ways to do this. One way is to place the roast in a pan in an oven. If it doesn’t fit in the oven or in the pan, consider resizing the roast (that’s a heuristic). By failing to distinguish between skills, heuristics, and mere actions, the ability to cook was diminished in that family. Good process = skills + heuristics – James I have found a powerful tool to use in resolving the skill vs. process debate: heuristics.

A heuristic is a fallible method of solving a problem. For instance, a hammer in the hands of a carpenter is a heuristic device. The hammer doesn’t guarantee a solution to any particular problem, but it can be used to solve some problems, if used skillfully.

Heuristics bring structure to skill, help us manage our reflex behavior, and thus they point the way to resolving the concern many people have about relying on skilled heroes alone. Look at any process document for performing an intellectual process, and what you see is a heuristic. The terrible problem with most process documents, however, is that they enthrone their heuristics. This is the big mistake. Instead, place skilled practitioners in charge and *support* them with heuristics. Train them in the responsible use of heuristics.

So, the true process for cooking a roast is (among other things) to bring the roast into contact with sufficient heat for a sufficient period of time, such that the necessary chemical reactions take place. A skilled cook knows many alternative ways to do this. One way is to place the roast in a pan in an oven. If it doesn’t fit in the oven or in the pan, consider resizing the roast (that’s a heuristic). By failing to distinguish between skills, heuristics, and mere actions, the ability to cook was diminished in that family.

Good process = skills + heuristics

– James

]]>