Bob Marshall posted on Twitter:

I replied with:

and he replied:

In 1956, George A. Miller wrote a paper arguing that the conscious mind, the part that contains our inner voice and that does the reasoning processes, can handle 7 ± 2 items at a time. My view is that, in order to be able to function within these constraints, we learn to group similar things together so that they take up less processing space.

For example, if I want to remember a six digit number, it might be easier for me to remember it as 3 two digit numbers than as 6 individual numbers. Very familiar numbers, such as the phone number of my parents only take up one space.

It’s like I’m carrying a fixed number of boxes, all of which are the same size, but in which I can store things that (in my own mind) are grouped together.

One thing I’ve noticed though, is that I begin to speak of the ideas inside in terms of the labels that I’ve added to the boxes. In terms of hard facts, like numbers or addresses, this doesn’t really make much difference, however, when the ideas and opinions in the boxes are much more subjective, this can lead to confusion and disagreements (or sometimes, vigourous agreement 🙂 )

For example, imagine that I am moving house and packing my belongings into boxes. In one box, I pack the contents of the fridge and because the fridge is in the kitchen, I label the box “Kitchen Stuff”.

I say to the removals people, “The box labelled ‘Kitchen Stuff’ has to be moved quickly. It’s very important that this box is moved as fast as possible”.

The removals people reply “You’re insane. Boxes labelled ‘Kitchen Stuff’ have to be moved carefully, and that means that we have to take it slow”

“No,” I say, “this box has to be moved quickly. If you move it slowly the contents will be ruined”

“No,” they say, “if we move it quickly, the contents will break. We must move it slowly and carefully”

I open the box and show them the contents and they understand. “Oh, it’s fridge stuff. Why didn’t you say so? When you said ‘Kitchen Stuff’ we assumed that you meant plates and glasses”

When we put labels on things in the boxes, it becomes much quicker for us to talk in terms of the labels. However, although we may have boxes labelled in a similar way, that does not mean that the contents are the same.

The box in my mind labelled “Scrum” may match a great deal of the contents of the box that you have labelled “XP” or that someone else has labelled “Lean”. The good thing about these boxes in my mind is that I can have an object appear in more than one of them. I might even place these three boxes into another box labelled “Common sense” (although I strongly suspect that the box with that particular label is guaranteed to be vastly different between every person)

As with my conversation with the removals men, I can get into a heated discussion with someone if we’re talking in terms of the labels on our boxes.

“XP is this, this and this”.

“No, that’s Scrum!”

The only way we can truly reach an understanding is if we recognise that we’re arguing over a label, and open our boxes to compare contents.

Sometimes, I even forget what I have stored in my boxes. I might only be talking about my memory of the things that I think I stored in the box. Opening the box and reviewing the contents, especially when someone else is doing the same, can help me to find new ways of categorising the ideas within. We might even find a common ground and start a revolution.

So, next time we don’t see eye to eye about the memories of the contents of our boxes, remind me “I’ll show you mine, if you show me yours”

There is a story about a cage of monkeys. In the middle of the cage is a ladder and at the top of the ladder is a banana.
One of the monkeys climbs the ladder to get the banana, but as he reaches for it, the entire cage becomes electrified and all the monkeys get a sharp shock.
Another monkey climbs the ladder, with the same result.
After a few attempts, the monkeys learn that climbing the ladder means everyone gets a shock, and they don’t try it again.

After a few days, one of the monkeys is replaced with a new monkey. This new monkey sees the banana and moves towards the ladder. The other monkeys, not wanting to be shocked, leap on him and beat him up. The new monkey attempts to go for the banana a few more times, before learning that going for the ladder means that the other monkeys will beat him up.

Over time, each of the original monkeys are replaced with new monkeys. Each new monkey learns the lesson that going for the ladder means getting beaten. Eventually, there are no monkeys who ever experienced the shocks. The electric shock equipment is then switched off. Still, no monkey ever climbs the ladder, for fear of being beaten up.

Unfortunately, monkeys are unable to ask “Why do you beat me up when I go for the banana?”, but if they could, the other monkeys would probably say “That’s just the way we do it here”.

Sometimes, our processes are based on a situation that no longer exists (like the inactive shock equipment). Sometimes, people we ask “Why do we do it this way?” won’t be able to provide an answer. Sometimes, we’ll try doing something different and we’ll get the banana and sometimes we’ll get a shock. Either way, we learn something.

I’m going to do something different today. Are you?

The monkey story is not mine, I think I came across it in an NLP book. There are plenty of examples on the web

Alistair Cockburn uses the term Shu-Ha-Ri regularly to explain different levels of learning.
The literal translation is approximately Learn/Follow(Shu), Detach(Ha), Transcend(Ri). A number of people I’ve discussed this with equate these levels to the Dreyfus model of skill acquisition. In fact, the Wikipedia article on Dreyfus links back to Shu-Ha-Ri.
In my opinion, this is doing an injustice to both models, and my slightly different interpretation follows.

Driving an example

Take, for example, learning to drive. As I learn to drive, I progress through the Dreyfus model, becoming a novice, then competent, then with a lot of practice, an expert. However, having only learned one way to drive, I would still consider myself to be in the Shu box.

Riding my way to the top

When I learn to ride a motorbike, I can take a number of similar practices from my car experience and apply them to the similar practices in the motorbike world, but I still need to be taught new practices (particularly around observation and hazard avoidance). After a suitable period of tuition, I am now competent in riding a motorbike. I would still consider myself to be a Shu level rider though.

Mixing it up

Now, while driving my car, I suddenly realise that the heightened observation and hazard avoidance techniques, essential while riding, are actually pretty useful while driving. I begin to blend the two skills together. I’m still doing it as taught, but I can pick the practices that are most useful from each and blend them to create something new. This is where I start to become Ha level, taking the most useful practices from a number of techniques and blending them to create something useful in a given context.

Taking it to new heights

Next, I learn to fly a plane, bringing with it new observational practices and new disciplines (e.g. pre-flight checks). Becoming competent here, I can blend some of the practices from flying back into my driving and riding and vice-versa.
Soon I begin to notice a strange feeling. I’m doing all the right things in my practices, but there’s something that seems not quite right, something that could be made better. After some thinking, I identify the missing piece of context and synthesise an appropriate set of techniques for that situation. I have gone beyond the known contexts and identified a new situation, picked or synthesised the appropriate practices for that situation and resolved it. This is Ri level. Having identified this new context, I can teach it to my Shu level students.

But mum, I don’t want to ride a bike

Each of the situations described above are very relevant to me, but that is not to say that you have to ride a bike to progress to Ha or Ri in a car.
Other practices and contexts can be learned on the race track, taking a 4×4 course, rally driving or on a skid pan. Indeed, the beauty of Ha and Ri is that I may bring skills from a completely unrelated area (First Person Shooter, Knitting) and use them to improve my driving techniques.

Softening it up a bit

So, how can we apply this to software? There are a number of practices, techniques and methodologies (e.g. Kanban, Scrum, XP, Lean, Real Options). By the definition explained above, becoming in all of these makes me a Shu level practitioner in each of them.
If I identify a practice from, say, Kanban, that is useful in a context in a Scrum environment, then blending two or more Shu practices takes me to Ha.
When I come across a situation or context where there is no guidance (all of my Shu boxes are empty), then I need to create a new practice or technique. I use my knowledge of similar techniques from a number of methodologies and come up with something that fits the situation.

In Shu-mmary (sorry, summary)

In my interpretation of Shu-Ha-Ri, we have:

• Shu (Learn) – Practice driven. We learn the practices by rote and apply them without understanding of the context.
  Shu practices are our tools, along with an instruction manual on how to use them in the situation they were created for. We can progress through Dreyfus model with each of our tools
• Ha (Blend) – Context driven. Having learned a number of practices, and a number of contexts in which they are appropriate, we can pick or blend a number of different practices for any known context.
  Ha practices are using our Shu tools in situations that weren’t described in their manuals
• Ri (Transcend) – Dealing with unknown context / identifying new practices. Coming across a brand new situation, we are able to identify an appropriate way of handling the situation.
  Ri practices are about creating new tools, either to handle a unique situation, or to handle an existing situation in a better way

I find that separating the Dreyfus model from the Shu-Ha-Ri model allows me to become an expert with each of my Shu tools without feeling that I should be able to apply them to unusual situations.
This is a useful way of thinking (to me at least). Rather than map Shu-Ha-Ri to the Dreyfus model, I choose to think of Shu-Ha-Ri as a skill in identifying contexts and tools.
You might want to discuss this with me some more in the comments 🙂

Imagine, if you will, a Santa’s grotto in a magical department store. Fresh faced children, still glowing from the snowfall outside, line up to greet the jolly man.
Joy and laughter can be heard throughout the crowd. Parents breathe a sigh of relief that their children are behaving well.
The amazing thing about this particular grotto is that whatever you ask Santa for, you receive as you leave. That’s one of the wonderful things about magic.

The first boy runs up to Santa, jumps on his knee, looks into his big jolly eyes, and asks for a train set. As he jumps down to leave, the elves hand him a big box, and inside is a train set that is just perfect.

The next child, a young girl, runs up to Santa, jumps on his knee, looks up and asks in a sweet voice for an iPod. As she jumps down to leave, the elves hand her a small box, and inside is the latest and greatest iPod.

The next child, another young boy, walks slowly up to Santa, climbs onto his knee, looks up and says in a thoughtful voice “I’m really not sure what I want for Christmas”. Santa smiles at him, the boy gets down and the elves hand him a box.
As the boy returns to his parents, they look inside the box… it’s empty.
The parents go absolutely crazy and start yelling. “WHY DID OUR BOY RECEIVE NOTHING? WE PAID THE SAME AMOUNT AS EVERYONE ELSE HERE!”
The elves look shocked and say “Your boy did not know what he wanted, so we just gave him something that looked like a present but was actually nothing”
The parents reply “Surely there is a better solution than this! You could have sent him to the back of the line to think about what he wanted, or given him a gift voucher so that he could choose at his leisure later”
The elves answer, “Well, we could have done that, but this is easier, and it’s what all the other elves do. Maybe you should check to make sure that your boy knows what he wants and that he actually gets it in return”

I wonder if you will remember that poor disappointed boy next time you return null;

Last year, I chose 5 goals. How did I manage with these?

Write more (this includes blogging and code)

I definitely wrote more code this year, especially early on in the year when Antony and I started Pair With Us. I feel that my blogging is probably around the same amount as previous years. Ideally I’d like to set a target of at least one blog post a week.

Present at one or more conferences

I presented at (what feels like) hundreds of conferences this year 🙂

Antony and I co-presented at Agile 2009 (Chicago), CITCON (Paris), Agile Development Practices (Orlando) and the SkillsMatter BDD Exchange (London)

We co-presented our tutorial at Oxford University as part of their Agile Methods Masters course

I also presented a keynote session at the Software Tester Forum (Zurich)

Help out with the jNarrate open source project

As part of Pair With Us, Antony and I did a little bit of additional work on JNarrate, although the majority of our work was on Narrative Fixture, which is an extension of JNarrate that wires it into FitNesse.

Further my understanding around NLP

I read a lot of books around NLP and hypnosis in 2009. I also enrolled on a Hypnotherapy and NLP Practitioner diploma. I am still learning loads on this and I am really enjoying it

Have a look at learning LISP

Well, as Meatloaf once said, “Two out of three ain’t bad”. I didn’t have time to work through the SICP course. This will stay on the backlog as I am still quite interested to do this

What else happened?

2009 brought some changes outside of the list.

• In March, Antony and I started Pair With Us, a series of unedited screencasts showing us working on the Narrative Fixture project, including all of the discussions, arguments, back tracking (and lots and lots of fun)

  A number of people have shown an interest in the both our programming style, and our willingness to show all online, including a number of prominent software craftsmen, such as Uncle Bob Martin, Corey Haines and Jason Gorman

• In July, I left ThoughtWorks to start up a new company, RiverGlide, with Antony Marcano. This has been very successful so far and I look forward to telling you more about the exciting developments (as well as some more of the history) in future posts