- Maybe there’s an irony to reading the 37 Signals book Remote while on a business trip. I’ve been remote working for my clients since finishing at Intel. It seems a more humane way to work. I’m also convinced it’s better for the companies involved. But, obviously, there is still some contact time required.
- For me, the biggest argument for remote work is removing the link between geography and employment. That means people can live where they want with no need to commute. They don’t need to be near an office, removing pressure on housing.
- We should definitely be trying to use technology to end commuting. All that travel is bad for the environment and produces stress. It’s not possible for carers or the disabled to make long journeys every day. And, while I’ve had good days commuting, no commute beats quiet time with family and friends.
- I personally like remote working as I have a nice flat and that flat is better for me than any office I’ve worked in. Sure, dotcoms sometimes offer laundry services – but I already have that. The coffee is excellent, and there’s a chaise long when I need to read long reports. I also have flexibility – to work from friends’ houses, or a library, or a co-working centre like the Skiff. Research has shown that commute time is inversely proportional to how happy people are with their lives. I’ve never been happier than I have since getting more control over my working schedule and conditions.
- Remote work is also better for companies. Many start-ups I’ve worked for have ended up as oral cultures, with documentation and processes distributed by word of mouth. Remote working forces companies to make things explicit. This makes their actions more efficient, repeatable, and reduces the risk of knowledge disappearing when employees leave.
- (There are some interesting related questions about transparency within companies. Why should my email account not be visible as documentation for all my colleagues? If another employee seeing what I write is a problem, then I shouldn’t be writing it.)
- Remote working requires much more written communication. Many companies already worry about the amount of email, with some even instituting email-free Friday. I’m not convinced that email is the evil that some people are making it – rather, like meetings and managers, these are good things that are misused.
- (One of the best email strategies I saw was in the early days at Brandwatch. That company had the only functional corporate wiki I’ve ever seen. One reason for this is that they used mediawiki, which is a much more fluent tool than, say Confluence. Brandwatch also had a rule that questions should not be answered by email – instead you had to write it in the wiki and send a link. And, after a while, the wiki answered a lot of questions, cutting down on repetitive emails.
- Another cargo cult of management is open plan offices. These environments are toxic for knowledge work, but companies still go for them, despite decades of research. Many times its because managers want to stop employees slacking off. This leads to a culture where people are rewarded for turning up, not for the work that is done. Remote working forces companies to be aware of what is actually happening. 37 signals talk about the vigilance needed for remote work – that small problems must to be addressed rather than allowed to grow. And this is not just in terms of work done, but also employee satisfaction and engagement. If employees are slacking off, it could be because they are not engaged. Forcing companies to be pro-active about these things can only be positive.
- There are excellent tools to support remote working, but these take some getting used to. Conference calls are tricky (as this site demonstrates). And slack is taking some getting used to: am I posting in the right channel? what should be a DM and what should be public? I’m also finding it difficult to know how best to work with remote reports.
- But Remote working is a skill and I am still learning. For example, I’ve discovered how much I rely on quick, informal chats rather than explicit briefings. But, as I get better at remote working, I become a better employee all round.
Michael T. Nygard’s Release It! was referred to several times at MuCon and keeps coming up when people discuss microservices. Despite being released in 2007 the book feels up-to-date. There was a lot of useful advice in here and, even when material was familiar, it was still entertaining. I wish I’d read this years ago – it would have saved a few mistakes.
The book is a good mix of instruction and case studies. Seeing how Nygard coped with real-life outages is both instructive and fascinating. The advice ranges from high-level (an excellent overview of networking) to low-level (when doing load tests, make sure some connections don’t log out).
Some of the sections I found particularly useful were the one on third party SLA’s and how to deal with them; QA vs production (one of those issues that keeps returning for me); the need to consider data purging from the start of a platform. There is also the discussion of the circuit breaker pattern, which seems to have been one of the most influential parts of the book.
As my responsibility has increased, I’ve needed to think more about the terrible things that might happen to a system. A lot of junior developers are perhaps too optimistic and books like this one are good for giving an idea of how subtly brittle systems can be and the need to develop a certain cynicism. For example, in a section on testing, Nygaard writes:
“A good test harness should be devious. It should be as nasty and vicious as real-world systems will be. The test harness should leave scars on the system under test. Its job is to make the system under test cynical”
Parts of Release It! feel like a horror novel for software developers. It will open your eyes to places where your software is vulnerable and how bad things might get. The book is also funny – laugh out loud funny in a few places. The best endorsement I can give is that this is one of those books you want to force everyone around you to read.
Last Saturday, while waiting to be picked up by my friends Joh and Simon, I was reading the original paper on Conway’s Law. It is one of the reference points of microservices and I wondered exactly what it said. How had Conway proved his Law? Talking about this in the car, Joh and Simon said I should read Laurent Bossavit‘s Leprechauns of Software Engineering.
In this small book (which is a good thing – too many software books are much larger than they should be) Bossavit investigates the common-sense things that ‘everybody knows’ about software development and finds that many of them are based on hearsay and poor citation. The book is a sort of Bad Science for computer programmers, what Bossavit refers to as “epistemic hygiene”. Some of the myths examined are the idea of the 10x programmer, the idea that bugs cost more the later that they are found, and the problems of the waterfall method.
I love this sort of research. I spent an hour during my MA investigating the often-quoted story that Tristan Tzara caused a riot by reading random poetry. Since my essay was on William Burroughs and detournement, I barely managed to fit the research into a footnote, but the work was fascinating.
Bossavit wants to train software developers to be more sceptical, and outlines his method. Of course, the big flaw with this book like this is that it demands a lot from the reader. Without going back and reading the original sources for myself, I can’t be sure that Bossavit’s claims aren’t hearsay themselves. But, even without doing that work, there is value in the critical doubt that it stirs up.
For me, the most interesting part of the book was the discussion of waterfall, and the suggestion that the attacks on waterfall are based on a straw-man. While I love agile, and feel that it produces more humane projects, a well-run traditional project can be more effective than a poorly run agile one. Indeed, one of the problems with agile is that failed projects are often dismissed as ‘not being properly agile’. As Bossavit writes: “Software engineering is a social process, not a naturally occurring one- it therefore has the property that what we believe about software engineering has causal impacts on what is real about software engineering.”