Friday, June 17, 2005

MoDELS 2005 Workshop

I’m on the program committee for the Model Driven Development of Advanced User Interfaces workshop at the MoDELs 2005 conference (formerly the UML conference) which is this year taking place in Jamaica. As many readers will know, I’ve been promoting model driven UI design and development since 1999 and I’ve written several papers on it which are available from uidesign.net.

[DEADLINE EXTENDED TO AUGUST 14th]

Download the Call for Papers [in PDF]

CALL FOR PAPERS

MoDELS 2005 Workshop:
  
Model Driven Development of Advanced User Interfaces

Montego Bay, Jamaica, October 2
http://www.edm.uhasselt.be/mddaui2005
 

The user interface of an application is often one of the core factors determining its success. While model-driven development is gaining popularity in the software engineering community, model-based user interface development is an important line of research in the human-computer interaction community. Both approaches make extensive use of models to develop software, but currently they are still vastly independent. This workshop aims at integrating the knowledge from both domains, leading to a model-driven development of user interfaces.

In particular, the focus of the workshop lies on advanced user interfaces corresponding to the current state-of-the-art in human-computer interaction. There is an increasing demand for user interfaces providing high usability while the covered functionality gets more and more complex. Moreover, there is a growing spectrum of target platforms, including e.g. mobile devices or infotainment systems. This results in more sophisticated and diverse user interface elements, like complex graphics and animation, 3D visualization, or multimedia representation. Interaction gets more diverse, often under consideration of several perception channels (e.g. speech interfaces or haptic output) and multimodal interaction techniques. At the same time, this increased complexity often requires more customizable and adaptive user interfaces, e.g. by automatic detection of the application context, like the current user, location, or device.

The goal of the workshop is to support a model-driven development of applications under comprehensive consideration of advanced user interface features. The target application area is not limited to classical business applications and may include games, simulations, infotainment or edutainment applications.
 
Topics of Interest
==================
Modelling of advanced user interface features, e.g.:
* Complex interactions and visualizations
* Multimedia representations
* Multimodality
* Adaptability and customization

Integration of user interface modelling approaches into model driven development, e.g.:
* Platform independent and platform specific models
* Relationships and transformations between models
* Integration of informal techniques, like prototypes and sketches
* Integration of specific tools, like user interface builder or authoring tools
 
Goals
=====
* Bring together a community integrating people and knowledge from human-computer-interaction and software engineering.
* Integrate research lines from model-based user interface development, model-based software engineering, and model-driven software development.
* Compose an overview of the state-of-the-art and challenges of the integration of user interface design methodologies and model-driven development.
* Plan further events on these topics.

Submissions
===========
We solicit short papers of maximum 4 pages length in ACM style addressing one or more of the above questions or presenting relevant work. All submitted papers will be reviewed by the program committee. All accepted papers will be published electronically as CEUR-proceedings.

Workshop Format
===============
The workshop takes one day during MoDELS conference. In the morning a selected number of participants will present their work in short presentations. The afternoon is provided for intensive discussion and formulation of conclusions.

Important Dates
===============
Paper submission: July 31, 2005
Notification of acceptance: September 6, 2005
Final paper: September 19, 2005

Program Committee
=================
David Anderson, Microsoft, USA; 
Simone D.J. Barbosa, PUC-Rio, Brazil; 
Jan Van den Bergh, Hasselt University, Belgium; 
Karin Coninx, Hasselt University, Belgium; 
Gregor Engels, University of Paderborn, Germany; 
Heinrich Hussmann, University of Munich, Germany; 
Quentin Limbourg, Université catholique de Louvain, Belgium; 
Nuno Jardim Nunes, Universidade da Madeira, Portugal; 
Philippe Palanque, University Paul Sabatier (Toulouse 3), France; 
Fabio Paternò, C.N. R. Pisa, Italy; 
Andreas Pleuss, University of Munich, Germany; 
Stefan Sauer, University of Paderborn, Germany; 
Jean Vanderdonckt, Université catholique de Louvain, Belgium 
 
Organization
============
Andreas Pleuss (main contact), University of Munich, Germany, .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address); 
Jan Van den Bergh, Hasselt University, Belgium; 
Heinrich Hussmann, University of Munich, Germany; 
Stefan Sauer, University of Paderborn, Germany 

Thursday, June 16, 2005

Performing a Tribal Analysis

So its a couple of days since I posted Ray Immelman’s tribal analysis technique. Now I’d like to take a look at how you might use it. Let’s consider a very strong tribe that I’m getting to know well - Microsoft.

Let’s first consider Tribal Security. Is the Microsoft tribe secure - remember its the perception of the tribal members that matters, not external opinion? Well, it’s a big company. Most big companies feel secure. It also has a dominant market position in its two main markets. It has a lot of money put by for a rainy day and it makes very healthy revenues and turnover. Thousands of people apply to join the tribe every month. It’s a safe bet to say that it has TS+.

Now let’s consider Tribal Value. Is Microsoft a prestigious tribe? Well if you live around Seattle it certainly is. When my wife’s friends heard I was being considered for a position with Microsoft, they all told her how wonderful it was and how impressed they were. And again, thousands apply to join the tribe every month - they feel it has value too. If you compare it against its peers in the Fortune 100, it is highly respected as a business and its leaders are revered. So TV+ then.

What about the individuals? Well we have a great health care plan, very adequate remuneration (though its no secret that some competitors pay higher wages), and a generally strong benefits package, and pension contributions worth real money. So IS+. Employees feel pretty secure. This is enhanced by the over all security of the business. And what about individual value? Well, the company likes to brag about its great hires. People are referred to as “Microsoft hires.” It’s generally considered that the company attracts great people, smart people, competitive people, ambitious people. A clear case of IV+.

So, why does Bill Gates like to remind the tribe that its important to “be paranoid”. That the company could be “innovated out of existence in a 15 year time period.” It seems so unlikely! Well look at the charts. The IS+TS+ quadrant is pretty ugly - in-fighting, focus on process rather than customer satisfaction and delivery, lack of innovation and risk taking and so on and on. By constantly reminding people to be paranoid, BillG is intuitively moving the tribe to TS-. Look at the behavioral difference in the IS+TS- quadrant - cooperative efforts to strengthen the tribe, personal sacrifice, focus on a common enemy. That’s the behavior that the company needs to keep succeeding, to keep winning in the market. This is just one example. It wouldn’t be hard to do a full analysis on Microsoft and its business units, but I think such an exercise is best kept internal. Don’t you?

Clearly, anyone who builds a big business from scratch in their own lifetime is a great tribal leader who knows how to build a strong tribe. It’s obvious that the leadership at Microsoft has done this for 30 years and it comes naturally to them. Luckily for the rest of us, Ray Immelman has built a framework that we can all use to understand the tribal behavior we see in our organizations and harness it for our benefit. Ray teaches us where and how to make adjustments in tribal behavior to drive the correct outcomes and deliver the best returns tribe, its members and its investors.

Wednesday, June 15, 2005

Personal Make vs Buy Decision

Recently, I haven’t been blogging much. There is an assignable cause, the root of which starts back in November last year when I shipped some furniture and personal effects from my parents home in Scotland. This included a small desk which my father had built for my brother’s bedroom perhaps 25 years ago. It wasn’t his finest piece of craftsmanship. For a man who was a trained turner (to call turners from his generation lathe operators would be to compare a 19th century craftsman with a 20th century assembly line worker) he took pride in his craftsmanship and skill. His greatest achievement in household handy work was a snooker table which involved a full two months of work. The desk on the other hand was industrial in design. He had borrowed the drawers from a discarded office desk to save making them. The handles were big, bulky and plain. The drawers had locks with long since lost keys. Most of the labor in making the desk had gone into the teak veneer which I still remember him clamping and gluing. When it came out of the truck, my wife said, “No way is that going in our daughter’s bedroom.” So I offered to refinish it and make it pretty - paint it white, change the handles, remove the locks. Sounded easy.

Off I went to Home Depot, purchased something my father never had available, pre-finished millwork, along with some paint and some knobs with a tulip motif. We are big into tulips in Washington state! It took 2 weeks worth of evenings - 5 hours of carpentry and about 20 hours of painting and associated refinishing work. However, the result was worth it. The desk is unrecognizable from the original and now sits in our guest bedroom until one of my daughters is old enough to need it. So far so good - not too big a hit on blogging. However, while I was doing all this, my wife put my daughter up to asking me, “Can you make a table for the trains?” Hmmm. How can you refuse a cute two year old with a birthday coming up? So, I took a look at a sample table online and thought, “can’t be so hard.” I set off again to Home Depot.

After two hours of raw material procurement, about $100 spent and eleven hours of carpentry, it looked like the one on the right.

The bottom picture shows how it looked after a further 20 hours of painting and a $20 more in paint. It features a very personal map of North West Seattle including many landmarks such as the Space Needle, the Zoo, Elliott Bay, Green Lake, Union Canal, several major roads, all the parks in which my daughter plays, all the proposed Monorail stations and even our own house.

Now I could have bought a Brio train table for $149 in a local store. Instead, I spent almost as much and sacrificed most of my evenings for several weeks. Was this a wise make versus buy decision? Yes, I have no doubt about it. When my father made things in the 1970’s, he made them to save money. In those days it was still possible. What can you possibly make today that costs less than buying a manufactured substitute? When he made the desk in the 1980’s, he made it to fit a small space. He couldn’t buy a desk to the size required. He had a compelling non-functional requirement - making was the only option. In my case, I made the train table for the love of it and the love of my daughter. The currency involved wasn’t dollars. Hopefully she will cherish it and keep it for her children and they too will get to know their grandfather through his work, just as my children can get to know their late grandfather through his. Of course, a manufactured table would have been better in some ways - it would be perfectly machined and symmetrical - with mine the sides are not interchangeable as the hole centers aren’t perfect. But a manufactured table, wouldn’t have been personalized with a Seattle map painted on top.

I have to conclude that I had no idea just how thrilling it would be to see a group of little kids playing around the table at the birthday party. I can see now why dads get addicted to do-it-yourself. It’s self-indulgence and labor of love and it feels great. The lesson here is that craftsmanship belongs in the garage or home workshop. It’s time we got past building software at work for the fun or love of it and focused more on the hard dollars belonging to the stock holders. It’s only right and proper that the right model for software is manufactured components - the software factories model that my colleagues Jack Greenfield and Keith Short are promoting - and not software hand crafted by artisans in a local workshop - never two applications the same. If I were in the train table business, the only aspect of my train table that should have been locally finished by artisans should have been the table top design. With a combination of manufactured parts and locally customized user interface, it might have been possible to deliver as much value at an affordable price - say $250. Would you pay $250 for a customized train table unlike no other in the neighborhood? One that is special just to you and your kids? Compared against $149 for a generic one? Maybe! The point is, you wouldn’t pay me $2,500 to hand craft it (at American labor rates) from solid pine for you, no matter how “special” it was. Now, would you?

Normal service at Agile Management will now be resumed. I’ve hung up my hammer for a while.

Lean Thinking in MSF v4.0 Webcast

I did an executive webcast for Microsoft today where I talked about the Lean software engineering features that we’re building in to Team System and exposing through the MS Project interface. You can see and hear the recording here http://go.microsoft.com/?linkid=3051760 but you need a Microsoft Passport first.

For those who have missed my presentations recently and want to hear some of the words that go with the some of my favorite slides then you will want to tune in.

Tuesday, June 14, 2005

Understand Your Tribe

So it is finally time to return to Great Boss, Dead Boss and look at how tribalism affects organizations and our behavior and relationships within the organization. Ray Immelman has four simple measures he uses to create a framework of two 2x2 matrices. The first is based on what he calls security - our personal individual security, as well as the security of our tribe(s) (or organizations or affiliations). Where does your organization fit on this matrix? How secure do the individuals feel? How secure is your organization? Remember its perception rather than reality that matters. If your only 2 months from bankruptcy but no one really knows, or cares because they feel the business is “safe as houses” then you are in the TS+ category, even though the reality is TS-.

The second set of measures involve what Immelman calls “value”. Think of it like self-esteem and tribal-esteem. Where does your organization lie on this matrix? Are individuals arrogant? Are they proud? Are they genuinely better than the competition? If so then you organization is an IV+ organization. What about the tribal esteem? How strong is your brand? Does everyone in your metropolitan area envy your workforce? Are you a destination employer? If so, then you are in the TV+ category.

So consider your own organization - your own tribe - against these measures. Now look at the behavior described in the boxes. Does it feel real to you? Does it reflect back your own brutal reality? or not? Please comment…

I’ll be looking more at how we can use these matrices in software engineering and the agile community in future posts.