Don't Dramatize - Act Naturally!

There is no sence in dramatizing things. The only effect you can get is fear and distrust.

You see somebody's mistake? Talk to him directly or try to correct softly - don't scream around producing nothing but nonproductive noise. Doing so you would definitely earn distrust - one would think you're trying to distinguish yourself at the other people's cost - and sure it is so, isn't it?

Coming into a new project, don't start criticizing aroung what doesn't suit you - be sure other people have already thought about alternatives and better solutions but were running into contraints. Don't think you are the Messiah which everybody has just waited for - in 99,999% of all cases you aren't any. And a real expert which has been awaited wouldn't even start crashing things. Not immediately.

Don't play missunterstood genius knowing and doing everything better than anybody else and feeling slowed down by those bad guys. If this is what you feel, consult phycologists. Otherwise just concentrate on doing your job well. The acceptation follows the deed, not the quick tongue and empty air.

Knowing things doesn't mean to know them exclusively. Understanding things doesn't mean to be the wiseman among the idiots. To have a loud voice doesn't mean to be allowed to scream. Dramatizing doesn't automatically mean to be more than a chip actor.

Don't dramatize - Act Naturally!

Thanks? Pat On The Shoulder? No! Silence Instead!

You're an IT architect. You think you do your job well. Fine - good for you!

Do you expect your boss to give you a pat on the shoulder each time you've done your job well? Really? Must we be that sensible?

You don't get criticized? Wonderful! Be happy and enjoy the silence. Silence is the indication of acceptance and agreement - not only if it comes from your boss. Thanks from the boss are a signal of things going wrong. A pat on the shoulder is a bonus if she/he's a nice guy. But in the substance:

Silence means you did it well.

Molecular Discussions

Trying to make architectural decisions as a team one can run into a problem of molecular discussions. It's a phenomenon typical for very unexperienced architects - not to make decisions and to try that damn thing but to discuss all the possible aspects and hazards and even the smallest thing - a molecule - in front in order to avoid mistakes.

Software always has errors. The question is, how robust is your software if facing errors. But there are always errors, and to try to discuss them all away even before starting doing things hands-on and checking things out will lead to the fear of beginning at all!

The second system effect of Fred Brooks is something similar but expects that one starts at all. With molecular discussions we have the problem that even no code gets written but the very project noise gets produced instead.

As human beeings we love it to dicsuss - we love to hear ourselves speaking. It's normal if it gets followed by doing. If it doesn't stop - don't break the mulecule into atoms, stop it and decide without democracy - what really counts is the result!

Is the Grim Reaper standing behind us whenever we make a mistake in a software? Sure, if it would lead to the loss of human lifes or the world instability. But is it always the case? I bet more than 90 percent of us will never produce such a software. So why produce overkill thinking the world will go down if you make a mistake? Is it a sort of megalomania? Or just a fear to decide or to do?

I say NO to molecular discussions in software. I love to check things out instead.