Still thinking about managing time…

Now that I‘ve actually read what I‘ve written a few weeks ago 😉 … I‘ve obviously had some time to reflect. About more models of managing your time, about integrating such models in your daily life, their limits, and, of course, about the underlying force, the “why” behind all that.

While trying to adjust myself to the spacious world of home office, I especially came to notice, that time management itself probably wasn‘t the actual issue I was trying to improve. Sure enough, there are several antipatterns of time mismanagement that can easily lead to excessive spending, something you can improve with simple Home Office installations, e.g. having a clock clearly visible from your point of view – and, sensibly, one clearly visible from your cofee machine… These are about making time perceptible, especially when you‘re not the type of person with absolutely fixed times for lunch, or such mundane concepts.

But then, there‘s a certain limit to the amount of improvement you can easily gain from managing time alone. Sure, you could try to apply every single life hack you find online, but then again, the internet isn‘t very good in accounting for differences in personal psychology. The thing you can do, is trying to establish a few recommendations at a certain time and shaking established habits, but you need to evaluate their effect. Not everything is pure gold. For example, my last blog post pointed to the Pomodoro technique, where one will find that there are classes of work that can easily be scheduled into 25-30 minute blocks. But there are others where this restriction leads to more complications than it solves. Another “life hack” the internet throws at you at every opportunity is having a certain super-best time to set your alarm clock to, and I would advise to try to shuffle this once in a while to find out whether there‘s some setting that is best for you. But never think that you need e.g. the same rising pattern as Elon Musk in order to finish your blog post in time… Just keep track of yourself. How would other people know your default mode?

Now overall, each day feels different a bit, and it‘s a function of your emotional state as well as some generic randomness that has no less important effects on your productivity than a set of rules you can just adhere to. So, instead on focussing on managing your time on a given day, we could think of actually trying to manage your productivity. But then again, “productivity management” sounds so abstract that the handles we would think of are about stuff like

  • what you eat
  • how you sleep
  • how much sports you‘re willing to do
  • how much coffee you consume

and other very profound parameters of your existence. That‘s also something you can just play around a bit until you find an obvious optimum. (Did you know that the optimum amount of breakfast beer for you is likely to be zero?… … :P)

However, if you keep on fine tuning every single aspect for the rest of your life like a maniac, you risk to loose yourself in marginal details, without gaining anything.

So if you‘re still reading – we now return in trying to solve what it actually is that we want to manage. And for me, the best model is thinking about managing motivation. Not the general “I guess I am better off with a job than without one”-motivation, but the very real daily motivation that makes you jump from one task into the next one. The one that drives maximum output from your given time without actually having to manage your time itself. There are always days of unsteady condition, but by trying to avoid systematic interferences with your motivation, you can achieve to maximize their output, as well.

At a very general level (and as outlined above), one crucial ingredient in motivational management, for me, is the circumstance of following a self-made schedule. By which of course, I mean, you arrange your day to cooperate with your colleagues and customers, but it has to feel like as much a voluntary choice as possible within your given circumstances.

Then, there‘s planning ahead. Sounds trivial. But you can be the type of person that plans several weeks in advance, or the one that is actually unsure about what happens next monday – the common denominator is avoiding to worry about a kind of default course of events for a few days in a row. We all know that tasks like to fill out more time than they actually require, so you get some backlog one way or another; but if you manage to feel like your time is full of doing something worthwile, it‘s way easier to start your day at a given moment than when you try to arrange tasks of varying importance on-the-fly.

One major point – which I was absolutely amazed by, when I chose to believe it – is, that you can stop a task at many times, without losing your train of thought, not just when it‘s finished. So often, one fears the expected loss of concentration when he realizes that a single task will not fit in a limited time box. But unless you are involuntarily interrupted, and unless you somehow give in to the illusion that the brain is somehow capable of multi-tasking*, you can e.g. shift whole subsections of a given task to the next morning in a conscious manner, and then quickly return to your old concentration.

On the other hand, there‘s the concept of Maker vs. Manager Cycles. Briefly,

  • Someone in a “Manager” mode has a lot of (mostly) smaller issues, spread over many different topics, often only loosely connected, often urgent, and sometimes without intense technical depth. The Manager will gain his (“/her” implied henceforth) motivation surely by getting a lot of different topics done in a short time, thus benefit from a tight, low-overhead schedule. He can apply artificial limits to his time boxes and apply the Pareto rule thoroughly: (“About 80% of any result usually stems from about 20% of the tasks”).
  • However, someone in “Maker” mode probably has a more constrained set of tasks – like a programmer trying to construct a new feature with clearly defined requirements, or a number of multiple high-attention issues – which he wisely bundled into blocks of similar type – will benefit from being left alone for some hours.

For a more thorough discussion, I‘ll gladly point to the discussion of Paul Graham, as Claudia thankfully left in our comment section last time 😉

Which brings me to my final point. I found one of the strongest key to daily motivation lies in the fundamental acceptance of these realities. As outlined above, there just are some different subconscious modes, and different external circumstances, that drive your productivity to a larger scale than you can manipulate. If you already adopted a set of measures and found they did a good job for you, you better not worry if there‘s some kind of a blue day where everything seems to lead to nowhere. You can lose more time by over-optimization than you could gain from super-finely-tuned efficiency. You probably already know this, but do you also embrace it?

(* in my experience, and while I sometimes find myself still trying to do this, multi-tasking is not an existing thing. If you firmly believe otherwise, be sure to drop me a note in the comments..)

Thoughts about Time Management

Now that we live in a time where many project-driven jobs have been forced out of their natural habitat (i.e. home office), one might more than ever ask oneself, „how do I get the most out of my day?“ This is especially interesting when coordination within a team can not happen ad hoc – as it would be possible in an open office environment – but has to fit into every involved one‘s schedule.

So, maybe, within these constraints, it is helpful to remind oneself of some key principles of how humans and their tasks interact with each other. The following compilation of ideas is largely based on fragments acquired by the author and is in no way fresh, groundbreaking research in any field 😉

1. Parkinson‘s Law and Time Boxes.

Sounding like absolutely commonplace knowledge, it is often circulated that “Work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion.” (originally published in 1955). This can be understood by acknowledging that the human mind usually is quite capable of abstraction and, therefore, of solving hypothetical problem statements… given one task, one can find an arbitrary level of depth of sub-tasks and scent out complications between them; all of which stands in the very way of what one might call one‘s claim for „perfection“, whatever that means.

In theory, however, this tendency can be confined somewhat by thinking of any task to only live in a static, smallest-possible „Time Box“. This aims at removing the buffer resources (or „cushions“) around any single task. By defining such a Time Box by first using words that are easy to grasp,and secondly allocating the minimum amount of time one can barely imagine, one can prevent his or her mind from wandering off into these depths of abstraction (e.g. to „make my home great again“ could involve several complicated and hitherto unknown steps, but to „empty the trash bins in 10 minutes“ feels quite palpable, even if it‘s only a minor aspect of the overall picture).

For singular tasks that need to be split up over several Time Boxes, one might use the idea of the „pomodoro technique“ as a guidance, which estimates that productive, uninterrupted work can usually happen in time intervals of about 25 minutes. In any way, the typical length of a work day should be booked out by timeslots completely, as any addition of a „buffer zone“ will probably directly calm the mind in any preceding Time Box („relax, I don‘t have to respect the end of my Time Box that much, that‘s what the cushions are for“). It might even be preferable to book out the whole work week in advance.

The point in all these is not that one can always manage to fulfil one‘s Time Box, but to give a quick and emotional feedback to the mind: „Stay focused or postpone the current Time Box, but don‘t enter a state of limbo in which you feel like working on the issue at hand, but actually create new tasks, and with impunity.“ On the other hand, if one manages to calibrate the Time Box duration to its projected task, one can very well thrive on the motivation resulting from finishing this task, amplifying focus in a most natural way. Leading over…

2. „Eat the Frog“.

The completion of a task usually leads to one of several effects: As mentioned above, one can feel a motivational push and immediate drive to tackle the next problem; or, however, it can lead to a temporary deflation due to the nearing-the-end-of-time-box-stress relief. Also, some tasks might feel so in routine, that they don‘t lead to excitement or fatigue at all. Either way, it‘s nearly impossible for anyone to predict at 9 am in which state of mind he/she is at 3 am. The key in upholding a certain level of progress, then, is to schedule the most off-putting item at the very beginning of every undertaking. It holds both in a general sense of „Risk First“, i.e. „tackle the problem that is potentially hardest to contain first“, and on a daily basis, i.e. „start your day with the most annoying problem (the most sluggish blocker)“. This is described by metaphorically eating a frog (indeed, it‘s a metaphor – it won‘t really help you if you actually devour one).

Solving the „Maximum Risk Time Box“ first has the advantage, that if the the project already unexpectedly starts to go awry in this stage, there still is plenty of time to communicate with one‘s customer, to outsource some duties to other contributors or to generally refine the original vision of the schedule. Of course, the whole point of Time Boxes is not just to put on artificial pressure for its own sake; but to lay out a road map to any given goal – just as when hiking, the need for some re-orientation is usually not to be seen problematic, if it is identified early enough.

Additionally, going to tackle the „Most annoying Thing of the Day“ first, can add some pleasure of feeling some progress early on any given day. Now that the disgusting frog has been eaten out of the way, you can view any other given task of the day as a comparatively low-threshold obstacle, being easier to put on your plate, easier to digest (it‘s still a metaphor). Furthermore, you can actually measure the progress in the superordinate picture by logging the progress of successfully eaten daily frogs.

To be continued…

Of course, such conceptions aren‘t very good advice if they don‘t align well with a specific project or the general psychology of their bearer. You might still need to flexibly adjust time for interruptions (e.g. video calls), and there are still many complications in which future tasks depend on the result of present tasks, so don‘t waste too much time trying to devise the perfect vision of Time Boxes and Frogs-To-Be-Eaten. With enough practice, however, this mindest can very well be useful in giving some feedback of accomplishment back to the architect.

I‘ll keep you updated when some undeniable drawbacks catch my eye.

The emoji checksum

This blog article is a story about an idea, not an actual project report. If it were a movie, it would feature the “based on real events” disclaimer.

The warehouse

Imagine a warehouse of a medium sized company. You would expect a medium sized warehouse, but in reality, the amount of items in this warehouse is nearly as big as in a big company. The difference might be the storage count of each item, but the item count is a big number. So big that each item has its own “item ID”, which is also used as the location identifier in the warehouse. Let’s see three (contrived) examples:

  • 211 725: Retaining screw, 8 mm
  • 413 114: Power transformer, 5 A
  • 413 115: Power transformer, 10 A

As you can see, different item groups have numbers with a large numerical distance while similar items are numerically close. This makes sense for the engineers using these numbers by muscle memory and for the warehouse navigation. If you read the first three digits, you already know where to turn to in the large hall. If you’ve arrived in the general area, the next three digits lead you to the exact storage space.

The operators

But that’s not how it works. The warehouse workers cannot read. Yes, you’ve read that right. The warehouse is operated by humans and the workers are not familiar with digits and numbers. They decipher each digit on their own and cannot cross-check with the article name. They navigate the warehouse with a best-effort approach. The difference between item 413114 and item 413115 is negligible for them. It’s the same thing anyway – unless you can read (and understand) that one of them blows up above 5 Ampere and the other one doesn’t. And this is a problem for the engineers. The difference between a “Power transformer able to take 10 Ampere” and a “Power transformer (5 A), aka molten copper lump” is a successful or a failed project.

So what can you do? Teach the warehouse workers how to read and deal with numbers? Would be a good approach if the turnover rate among them wasn’t so high. What else can we do? We can abstract the problem at hand, apply a suitable solution approach and see if it works.

The abstraction

If you think about the situation in abstract terms, you deal with an unreliable data transmission. You send your item list to the warehouse and receive a collection of loosely related items. That’s similar to sending data over a faulty cable. To mitigate transmission errors, we’ve invented checksums. Each suitable part of the transmission is validated (or invalidated) by a checksum.

In our case, the “suitable part of the transmission” is each single item. We should add a checksum to the item list! Instead of requesting item 413114, we request 413114/7, while item 413115 is requested as 413115/1. Now, we have a clear indicator for wrong or right. But it is still an indicator in a foreign alphabet. If you ignore the difference between 4 and 5, why not also ignore the difference between 7 and 1?

The emojification

But what if we don’t rely on numbers or characters, but on something every human can understand, regardless of literacy level? What if we transpose the numbers into an emoji alphabet? Let 413114 be 😄🌵☁️🌵🌵😄 and 413115 is written as 😄🌵☁️🌵🌵🏠. But more important: The checksum is in emoji, too:

😄🌵☁️🌵🌵😄 (413114)

🚗 (7)
vs.
😄🌵☁️🌵🌵🏠 (413115)

🌵 (1)

Even if you only glance at the emoji series (and fail to notice the difference at the end), you still have to acknowledge that your checksum doesn’t fit. A cactus is no car, regardless of your literacy.

This transposition of numbers into the iconographic realm plays right into every human’s built-in ability to distinguish concrete objects. Numbers, digits and characters are (more) abstract concepts and objects, but a cloud is recognizable as a cloud even if you draw it by hand and without care. The transposition is reversable quiet easily – you only have to remember ten number/emoji pairs (or eleven, if your checksum has an extra character). And nobody stops you from printing both on the item list and warehouse storage boxes:

And the best thing? You don’t even have to invent the transposition yourself. Just use the existing work of others by checking out emojisum by Vincent Batts or ecoji by Keith Turner.

The only thing that is stopping you is that ancient dot matrix printer that prints the item lists on continuous paper.

When everything’s an issue

Years ago, I read the novel “Manna” by Marshall Brain. It’s a science fiction story about the robotic takeover and it features “Manna”, an (artificially) intelligent work management software that replaces human managers and runs the shop. The story starts with “Manna” and goes on to explore the implications of such a system on mankind. It’s a good read and contains a lot of thoughts about what kind of labor we want to do.

The idea that really captivated me was the company that runs itself. Don’t get me wrong: Most organizations are so big that the individual employee cannot see the big picture anymore. Those organizations seem to “run itself” to the untrained eye, but it is still humans that manage the workload. And like all humans, they make mistakes and, perhaps very subtle, infuse their own selfish goals into the process. But an organization that has its goals and instructs its workers (humans and machines alike) directly is an interesting thought for me.

It also is totally unrealistic with today’s technology and probably contains some risks that should be explored carefully before implementing such a system in the wild.

But what about a more down-to-earth approach that achieves the core advancement of “Manna” without many or all of the risks? What if the organization doesn’t instruct, but makes its needs visible and relies on humans to interpret and schedule those needs and fulfill them? In essence, a “Manna” system without the sensors and decision-making and certainly without the creepy snooping tendencies. Built with today’s technology, that’s called an automated work scheduler.

And that is what we’ve built at our company. We use an issue tracking system to manage and schedule our project work already. We extended its usage to manage and schedule our administrative work, too. Now, every work unit in the company is (or could be) accompanied by an issue in the issue tracker. And just like software developers don’t change code without an issue, we don’t change our company’s data or decisions without an issue that also provides a place for documentation related to the process. We’ve come to the conclusion that most of those administrative issues are recurring. So we automated their creation.

Our very early stage “Manna” system is called “issue scheduler”, a highly creative name on its own. It is a system that basically contains a lot of glorified cron expressions and just enough data to create a meaningful issue in the issue tracker, should a cron expression fire. So basically, our company creates issues for us on a fixed schedule. Let’s look at some examples:

  • We add a new article to our developer blog (you’re reading it right now) every week. This means that every week, our “issue scheduler” creates a blog issue and assigns it to the next author in line. This is done some time in advance to give the author enough time to prepare and possibly trade with other authors. Our developer blog has the “need” for one article each week, but it doesn’t require a particular topic or author. This need is made visible by the automatic blog issues and it is our duty to fulfill this need. On a side note: Maybe you’ve noticed that I wrote two blog articles in direct succession. There is definitely some issue trading going on behind the scenes right now!
  • We tend to have many plants in our office. To look at something green and living adds to our comfort. But those plants have needs, too. They probably make their needs pretty visible, but we aren’t expert plant caregivers. So we gave the “issue scheduler” some entries to inform us about the regular watering and fertilization duties for our office plants. A detailed description of the actual work exists in our company wiki and a link to it gives the caregiver of the week all the information that’s needed.
  • Every month, we are required to file a sales tax summary report. This is a need of the german government agencies that we incorporate into our company’s needs. To work on this issue, you need to have more information and security clearances than fits on a wiki page, but to process is documented nonetheless. So once a month, our company automatically creates an issue that says “do your taxes now!” and assigns it to our administrative employees.

These are three examples of recurring tasks that are covered by our poor man’s “Manna” system. To give you a perspective on the scale of this system for a small company like ours, we currently have about 140 distinct rules for recurring issues. Some of them fire almost every day, some of them sleep for years and wake up just in time to express a certain need of the company that otherwise would surerly be forgotten or rediscovered after the fact.

This approach relieves us from the burden to remember all the tasks and their schedules and lets us concentrate on completing them. And our system, in contrast to “Manna” in the story, isn’t judging or controlling. If you don’t think the plants need any more water, just resolve the issue with “won’t fix”. Perhaps you can explain your decision in a short comment for other humans, but our “issue scheduler” won’t notice.

This isn’t the robotic takeover, after all. It’s just automated scheduling of recurring work. And it works great.

How to approach big tasks

In the heart of software development lies “the system”. The system is always complicated enough that you cannot fully grasp it and it is built by stacking parts on top of another that are just a tad too big to be called simple. The life of a software developer is an ongoing series of isolated projects that are at the threshold of his or her capabilities. We call these projects “epics”, “stories” or just “issues”. The sum of these projects is a system.

Don’t get me wrong – there a tons of issues that just require an hour, a cup of coffee and a few lines of code. This is the green zone of software development. You cannot possibly fail these issues. If you require twice the time, it’s still way before lunchtime. And even if you fail them, a colleague will have your back.
I’m talking about those issues that appear on your to-do list and behave like roadblocks. You dread them from far away and you know that this isn’t smooth sailing for an hour, this will be tough work for several days. This isn’t just an issue, it is an issue by itself for you. You are definitely unsure if you can make it.

Typical small project management

How do you approach such a project? It isn’t an issue anymore, as soon as you get emotionally involved, it becomes a project. Even if your emotion is just dread or fear, it is still involvement. Even if your management style is evasion, it is still project management. Sure, you can reassign a few of these icebergs, but they will always be there. You need to learn to navigate and to tackle them. Hitting an iceberg in the “frontal collision”-style isn’t a good idea.

On closer inspection, every project consists of numerous parts that you already know a solution for – typical one-hour issues – and just a few parts that you cannot estimate because you don’t know how to even start. Many developers in this situation take the route of least resistance and start with the known pieces. It’s obvious, it feels good (you are making good progress, after all!) and it defers failure into an uncertain future (aka next work week). Right now, the project is under control and on its way. We can report 80% finished because we’ve done all the known parts. How hard can the unknown parts be anyway? Until they strike hard and wreck your estimates with “unforeseen challenges” and “sudden hardships”. At least this is what you tell your manager.

Risk first!

My preferred way to approach those projects is to reveal the whole map, to estimate all parts before I delve into the details. I already know most of the easy parts, but what about the unknown and/or hard parts? I don’t know their solution so I cannot reliably estimate their size. So I sit down and try to extract the core problem that I don’t know how to solve yet. This is the thing that prohibits an estimate. This is the white area on my map. This is the “here be dragons” area. If I spend my resources doing all the work other than this, I will succeed until I stand on the border of this area and see the dragon. And I will not have sufficient resources left. My allies (like my manager and colleagues) will grow weary. I will have to fight my hardest battle in the most inconvenient setting.

My approach is to take the risk upfront. Tackle the core problem and fail. Get up and tackle it again. Fail once more. And again. If you succeed with your task, the war is won. Your project will still require work, but it’s the easy kind of work (“just work”). You can estimate the remaining tasks and even if you’ve overspent in your first battle, you reliably know how much more resources you will need.

Fail fast

And if you don’t succeed? Well, then you know it with the least damage done. Your project will enter crisis mode, but in a position when there is still time and resources left. This is the concept of “fail fast”. To be able to fail fast, you need choose the “risk first” approach of task selection. To tackle the risk first, you need to be able to quantify the “risk” of your upcoming work.

Assessing risk

There are whole books about risk assessment that are interesting and helpful, but as a starter, you only need to listen to your stomach. If your stomach tells you that you are unsure about a specific part of your project, put that part on the “risky” list. If you don’t have a reliable stomach, try to estimate the part’s size. Do the estimation game with your colleagues. Planning poker, for example, is a great tool to uncover uncertainty because the estimates will differ. Just remember: Risk isn’t correlated with size. Just because a part is big doesn’t mean it is risky, too. Your crucial part can maybe be developed in an hour or two, given an inspiration and a cup of coffee.

Failing late means you’re out of options. Failing fast means you’ve eliminated an option and moved on.

What Dwarf Fortress taught me about motivation in software development (part I)

Dwarf Fortress is a peculiar game. It is free to play, developed by two guys that very much depend on donations. It looks like the last 30 years of advancement in computer graphics just didn’t happen, using raw ASCII graphics and an user interface that would have been horrible even in the 1980s.
In Dwarf Fortress, you try to build up a colony of dwarves without giving direct commands to them. You see your dwarves (represented by ASCII characters 0x01 and 0x02 in codepage 850) from above, in a three-dimensional environment consisting of blocks of material like stone or wood. The world is dynamic and simulated with strange, but comprehensible physics. You cannot grow a tree on a stone patch. You can pour water over dirt and get mud. Water flows downwards and will result in FUN if unsupervised. I’ve written fun in capital letters to differentiate the FUN of dwarf fortress from the fun of other games. It really is different.

You can try to imagine Dwarf Fortress being a weird crossover of Minecraft, the Sims and Rogue. Why the Sims? Because each dwarf isn’t just an action figure, but a complex individual with its own beliefs, value system, preferences and aversions. Each dwarf has its own skills and abilities and interacts with other dwarves in a social manner. Dwarf Fortress has a detailed simulation of nature and a detailed simulation of dwarves, down to their individual toes and teeths. It is very possible that one dwarf detests another dwarf so much that he pushes the victim over a cliff if nobody else is around. If the victim survives, you’ll have drama (aka FUN) in your fortress for years.

How can such a game give insights about motivation? Well, let me present you one more aspect of the game: the production system. Our dwarves need food to survive. They need clothes, tools and furniture. Most need some kind of art or decoration. One thing they all can agree to is that they need alcohol. All dwarves are addicted to alcohol so much, they will go crazy without it. And crazy dwarves result in immediate FUN.
But it is our task to govern the dwarves to actually produce these products in sufficient amounts. And this is where the complex production system hits us. In order to produce alcohol, you need to have fermentable plants, a brewery and an empty pot or barrel. To obtain the plants, you can suggest to your dwarves to raise them on farm plots (remember, you cannot give commands) or go out into the wilderness and gather them. Most dwarves really don’t like being outside and will get very unhappy if they are caught in the rain or cold. Yes, the weather is simulated in great detail, too. Water, for example, freezes in the winter.
So, to only have alcohol for your colony, you need one dwarf to prepare the field, one to plant the seeds, one to harvest, one to carry the harvest into the brewery, one to actually brew – and then you discover that you have no pots, so nothing gets stored. You also need to have one dwarf to gather wood or stone and one to produce a pot out of it. This can only be done at the Craftsdwarf’s workshop, so you need to have on built, too.
Did I tell you that dwarves have preferences? If you only grow wheat, you’ll get the finest dwarven beer, but all your wine gourmet dwarves will be unhappy (on a side note: Don’t let them fool you, they drink way too much wine to be called a “gourmet” anymore). You need to produce a variety of alcoholic drinks to give everybody their favorites.

Let’s review the production system one more time. Every dwarf wants to have clothing. Their own clothing! The game simulates clothing down to the left and right sock. Each sock has a quality and can show wear. To produce a sock, you need to obtain some specific plants, process them to obtain threads, weave the threads to cloth, dye the cloth to some color (the dye is the product of another production chain) and then tailor the sock in the Clothier’s shop. The tailor is probably a dwarf that enjoys clothesmaking and is very skilled doing it. He produces socks day in, day out. Some of them are of high quality, maybe even masterpieces (there is the very rare legendary sock that has in-game songs and poems written about it). Others are poor quality, mere trash from the beginning. The tailor knows about the quality of his products and gets a little amount of happiness for each well-done sock and a little amount of unhappiness if the sock was trash.

And here is the first insight about motivation: Motivation doesn’t only come from skill and preferences, but also from good results. If a dwarf is able to produce a good result regularly, he stays happy and motivated. Give him a task where he cannot succeed, no matter the effort, and he will get unhappy. Which will ultimately result in FUN, because the dwarf will try to compensate, maybe by going on a wine gourmet rampage. In the first fortress, a happy tailor produces quality socks for everybody. In the second fortress, a very drunk, unhappy tailor wastes your precious cloths while everybody else walks barefoot and gets unhappy if their toes hurt because of it.

So, motivation is not primarily about performing a task, but achieving a result. A result like crafting a product or, in our case as software developers, releasing a new version of the software with additional features.

Have your dwarves, I mean, your team, produce good results regularly. This is one thing that agile software development processes (and particularly SCRUM) get right: There is a public result at the end of each iteration – if the developers are skilled enough. With lesser skilled developers, you essentially signal them a failure every other week. They are probably trying very hard, but cannot come up with a good enough sock each sprint yet. Make the sprints longer or change your definition of a good result to something more attainable.

Without a clear result, something to hold onto, motivation will fade, too. That’s because uncertainty is stressful for most people. They will compensate for this stress by doing all kind of work, but not the necessary one. If you take a look at the work they do – it gives them measurable results. It may not contribute to the big result at the end of the cycle in any meaningful way, but it contributed to their motivation during the journey.

As a manager, you cannot give your developers direct orders. Or at least, you shouldn’t. If you use suggestions and a setup that facilitates self-organization of the team so that their preferences and needs align with or at least support the goal of the project, you’ll get a highly motivated team that doesn’t fear recurring result examinations, but looks forward to them – because they validate their efforts and give greater meaning to their work. Work that in itself already aligns with their own skills and preferences.

To sum it up: Dwarf Fortress taught me that direct orders are not the way to motivate teams. Creating an environment that anticipates public results often and making sure that the team is skilled enough to meet the expectations (or adjusting the expectations) are key factors to ongoing motivation.

The project jugglers

By Usien (Own work) [GFDL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html) or CC BY-SA 3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)], via Wikimedia CommonsIn this blog post, I will shine some light on a feature of our company that is often met with disbelief: How five developers can work on twenty projects at once without being stressed. I try to use the metaphor of a juggler, though I know nothing about juggling other than it can be done. I cannot hold more than one object in the air at any given time and even that is an optimistic estimate. But I’ve seen jugglers keep six to eight objects flying with seemingly no effort. We do this with software development projects.

A layman theory of juggling

A good metaphor can be applied from start to finish. I’ve probably chosen a bad metaphor, but it gives the right initial impression: Every developer at our company leads several projects at once. He (or she) keeps the projects alive and in the “green zone”, the ratio of remaining budget, time and scope (read: work left to be done) that promises little to no trouble in the foreseeable future.

In order to juggle without visible effort, you probably need to practice a lot. You probably drop your objects a lot. You probably need to watch the objects fly in the beginning.

In our case, we needed a lot of practice to reach our level of confidence. We lead development projects for up to 17 years now. Each developer finishes between four and seven projects per year. That’s up to a hundred projects to gain experience from. But we couldn’t drop (read: fail) a lot of projects, because it directly hurt our bottom line. Just imagine you want to learn how to juggle, but all you got are expensive ming vases that you bought from your own money, without insurance. That’s how it feels to “experiment” with projects. So we play it safe and only accept projects we know we can handle. And we watch our projects fly, very very closely. In fact, we have a dedicated position, the “project manager”, with the one duty to periodically ask a bunch of questions to assure that the project is still in the green zone.

Draw the trajectory

Every object that you can juggle has its own characteristics of how it behaves once it is in the air. A good juggler can feel its trajectory and grab it in just the right moment before it would fall out of reach. The trick to keep a software development project in the green zone is the same: Get a hold on it before it ventures too far in an unfortunate direction, which is the natural tendency of all projects. The project lead has to periodically apply effort to keep the project afloat. But when is the right time to invest this effort? Spend it too soon and it has only minimal effect. Spend it too often and you’ll exhaust your power and your budget. But because every project has its own trajectory, too, and you can’t afford to let it slip, you should make the trajectory as visible as possible. You should draw it!

We’ve experimented with a lot of tools and visualizations. The one setup that works best for us is a low technology, high visibility approach. The project lead takes one half of a whiteboard and draws a classic burn-down chart or a variation (we often use a simple vertical progress bar). This chart is hand-drawn and rather crude, but big enough that everybody can see it. It is updated at least every time the project manager comes around to ask his or her questions. One of the questions actually is: “Is this chart up to date?”. The remaining budget of your project needs to be available at a glance, from across the hall. The project lead needs to “feel” this budget. And if it makes him or her nervous, it’s high time to determine the remaining scope and calendar time of the project once again.

In doing this positioning by triangulation on a regular schedule, the project lead draws the trajectory of the project for all three axes and can probably interpolate its future course. He can then apply effort to nudge (or yank, if things got worse fast) the project back on track.

Without the visibly drawn trajectory, your project lead is like a juggler in the dark, tossing unknown objects in the air and hoping that they’ll fall in place somehow.

Know your limit

As the complete noob to juggling that I am, I imagine that jugglers have a secret dress code like martial artists (watch their belts!), where other jugglers can read how many objects they can hold up at once. Something like buttons on the vest or the length of a scarf. So the beginning 3-objects juggler bows in awe to the master 12-juggler, who himself is star-struck by the mighty 18-juggler that happens to attend the same meet-up.

In our company, this “dress code” would be based on the number of projects you are leading. And just like with the jugglers, it is important that you know your current limit. There is no use in over-extending yourself, if you accidentally let one project slip, the impact is big enough that you’ll fail your other projects, too. Just like the juggler loses his or her rhythm, you’ll lose your “flow”.

The most important part of juggling many projects is that you always juggle one less than you are capable of. You need reaction time if one of them topples over. A good juggler can “rescue” the situation with subtle speedup or extra movements because the delay between necessary actions allows for it. A good project lead has emergency reserves to spend without compromising other projects.

There is nothing wrong to start with two projects and add more later on when you are more confident. But don’t start with only one. You can only form habits of resource sharing if you share from the beginning. Even I can pose as a competent 1-juggler, but the lowest bar to juggling has to be two objects.

Box your time

Again, I know nothing about juggling. But from a mathematical viewpoint, juggling is “just” an exercise in timeboxing. If you have four objects in the air, in an arc that requires one second to go around, you’ll be able to spend a quarter second (250 ms) of attention to each object on each rotation. The master 12-juggler from above can only afford 1/12th or 80 milliseconds for each object. If he takes longer for one object, the next one will suffer. If he has no time reserves, a jam will build up and ultimately break the routine.

So, as a project lead, you need to apply timeboxes on all of your projects. They don’t need to be of equal size, but small enough that you can multiplex between your projects fast and often enough. A time box is a fixed-size amount of time that you allot to a specific task. The juggler uses a time box to put the next falling object flying back up. In our lunch break, we allot 60 minutes to food, beverages and some amount of walking. And if the process of eating takes longer than usual (I’m a chronic slow-eater, I can’t help it)? Then I have to go back partially hungry because I’ll end my lunch break on time. That’s the most important characteristic of a time box: You either succeed “in time” or interrupt or even cancel the task. The juggler will drop the one iffy object instead of risking a complete breakdown of the arc. You need to let your problematic task go (for the moment) instead of spreading the problem onto your other projects, too.

We’ve found that the amount of “one workday” is the most natural and easiest to manage time box. So we try our best to partition our week in the granularity of days and not our days in the granularity of hours. One aspect that helps tremendously is to have different physical locations for different projects. So you can be physically present “in the project” or “too far away at the moment” from the project. You plan your work week in locations as much as you plan it in project time boxes. The correlation of workdays, locations and projects is so strong that it doesn’t even seem to be timeboxing or project multiplexing. You just happen to be in the right place to work on project X for today. This is how you can juggle up to five projects without having to compromise all that much (provided you have a five-day work week).

If you can’t physically relocate your work, at least try to have a fixed schedule for your projects, like the “project A monday” or the “project X friday”. This might also mean to postpone emerging issues with project X until next friday. You need to build up skills to negotiate these delays with your customers. If your customers can dictate your schedule, you’ll get torn to shreds in no time. It’s friday or no day for issues on project X – at least as a good start for heavy bargaining. But that’s a whole topic for another blog post. Please leave a comment if you are interested to hear more about it.

Stuff your box

The “one workday” time box has a strong implication: Every little thing you do for a project takes one day. That doesn’t mean you should work for five minutes on project A, completing the task, and then stare into the air and twiddle your thumbs. It means that you should accumulate enough tasks for project A that you can spend the better half of the day on the known tasks and the remaining time on the unknown problems that arise on the way. In the evening, you should be able to finish your work for project A with a feeling of closure. You can put project A aside until next week (or whenever your next cycle is). You can concentrate on project B tomorrow and project C the next day. Both projects didn’t bother you today (well, perhaps a bit, but you only acknowledged some e-mails and deferred any real thoughts on it until you enter their timebox).

Perpetual closure

The feeling of closure at the end of a successful work day is the most important thing that keeps you composed. You’ve done your thinking for project A this week and will think of project B tomorrow. But now, you can rest.

This must be the feeling that the juggler experiences with each object that goes up again. It is out of sight and only needs attention after it has nearly completed its arc again. And now for the next object, one at a time…