| Andrew Cooke | Contents | Latest | RSS | Twitter | Previous | Next

C[omp]ute

Welcome to my blog, which was once a mailing list of the same name and is still generated by mail. Please reply via the "comment" links.

Always interested in offers/projects/new ideas. Eclectic experience in fields like: numerical computing; Python web; Java enterprise; functional languages; GPGPU; SQL databases; etc. Based in Santiago, Chile; telecommute worldwide. CV; email.

Personal Projects

Lepl parser for Python.

Colorless Green.

Photography around Santiago.

SVG experiment.

Professional Portfolio

Calibration of seismometers.

Data access via web services.

Cache rewrite.

Extending OpenSSH.

C-ORM: docs, API.

Last 100 entries

Bjork DJ Set; Z3 Example With Python; Week 1; Useful Guide To Starting With IJulia; UK Election + Media; Review: Reinventing Organizations; Inline Assembly With Julia / LLVM; Against the definition of types; Dumb Crypto Paper; The Search For Quasi-Periodicity...; Is There An Alternative To Processing?; CARDIAC (CARDboard Illustrative Aid to Computation); The Bolivian Case Against Chile At The Hague; Clear, Cogent Economic Arguments For Immigration; A Program To Say If I Am Working; Decent Cards For Ill People; New Photo; Luksic And Barrick Gold; President Bachelet's Speech; Baltimore Primer; libxml2 Parsing Stream; configure.ac Recipe For Library Path; The Davalos Affair For Idiots; Not The Onion: Google Fireside Chat w Kissinger; Bicycle Wheels, Inertia, and Energy; Another Tax Fraud; Google's Borg; A Verion That Redirects To Local HTTP Server; Spanish Accents For Idiots; Aluminium Cans; Advice on Spray Painting; Female View of Online Chat From a Male; UX Reading List; S4 Subgroups - Geometric Interpretation; Fucking Email; The SQM Affair For Idiots; Using Kolmogorov Complexity; Oblique Strategies in bash; Curses Tools; Markov Chain Monte Carlo Without all the Bullshit; Email Para Matias Godoy Mercado; The Penta Affair For Idiots; Example Code To Create numpy Array in C; Good Article on Bias in Graphic Design (NYTimes); Do You Backup github?; Data Mining Books; SimpleDateFormat should be synchronized; British Words; Chinese Govt Intercepts External Web To DDOS github; Numbering Permutations; Teenage Engineering - Low Price Synths; GCHQ Can Do Whatever It Wants; Dublinesque; A Cryptographic SAT Solver; Security Challenges; Word Lists for Crosswords; 3D Printing and Speaker Design; Searchable Snowden Archive; XCode Backdoored; Derived Apps Have Malware (CIA); Rowhammer - Hacking Software Via Hardware (DRAM) Bugs; Immutable SQL Database (Kinda); Tor GPS Tracker; That PyCon Dongle Mess...; ASCII Fluid Dynamics; Brandalism; Table of Shifter, Cassette and Derailleur Compatability; Lenovo Demonstrates How Bad HTTPS Is; Telegraph Owned by HSBC; Smaptop - Sunrise (Music); Equation Group (NSA); UK Torture in NI; And - A Natural Extension To Regexps; This Is The Future Of Religion; The Shazam (Music Matching) Algorithm; Tributes To Lesbian Community From AIDS Survivors; Nice Rust Summary; List of Good Fiction Books; Constructing JSON From Postgres (Part 2); Constructing JSON From Postgres (Part 1); Postgres in Docker; Why Poor Places Are More Diverse; Smart Writing on Graceland; Satire in France; Free Speech in France; MTB Cornering - Where Should We Point Our Thrusters?; Secure Secure Shell; Java Generics over Primitives; 2014 (Charlie Brooker); How I am 7; Neural Nets Applied to Go; Programming, Business, Social Contracts; Distributed Systems for Fun and Profit; XML and Scheme; Internet Radio Stations (Curated List); Solid Data About Placebos; Half of Americans Think Climate Change Is a Sign of the Apocalypse; Saturday Surf Sessions With Juvenile Delinquents; Ssh, tty, stdout and stderr; Feathers falling in a vacuum; Santiago 30m Bike Route; Mapa de Ciclovias en Santiago

© 2006-2015 Andrew Cooke (site) / post authors (content).

Reflections on First Consultancy Gig

From: "andrew cooke" <andrew@...>

Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2009 14:51:37 -0400 (CLT)

I finished my first job in the capacity of a "consultant" and have been
thinking about how it went (ie worrying over the problems).

Technically, things generally went well.  I perhaps didn't worry enough
(or early enough) about efficiency, but this is perhaps more a social
issue than a technical one: even if you know a system can be made quick
enough in later iterations, "it's slow" is an immediate reaction of anyone
who tries it.

The technical/social distinction continues to be misleading, because my
first social issue is also a technical one: that I didn't think about the
future of the system.  Who will maintain and run it?  And do they have any
interest in it succeeding?

Related to that, did I provide what the client wanted?  I am not sure I
did.  There was an existing application that looked very good, but had a
poor technical basis.  I developed a new system that provided the
technical infrastructure on which a replacement could be built (or to
which the existing system could be moved).  That's fine, technically, but
it would have been much better received, I think, if it had been
implemented as a progressive extension to the existing system.  An
adaptive approach like that would have had the following advantages:

- The final result would integrate the existing presentation layer, which
looked good.

- During development I would have seen "real life" loads from the upper
layer, which might have led to slightly different (efficiency related)
implementation choices.

- The process for supporting the existing system would have adapted
gradually to the new system.

So why didn't I do this?  One obvious reason is that it sounds like a lot
more work.  But it turned out that we had enough time to implement much
more than anyone originally hoped.  So, at least in retrospect, I could
have taken much longer - half the functionality, better received, would
have been a decent tradeoff.

Another reason is that there was both poor communication and a fear of
poor communication.  The approach sketched above requires good
communication, I think.  But perhaps pressing forwards would have improved
communication to the degree necessary?  It is hard to argue against the
alternative - that by striking out alone, I made communication even worse.

All above is particularly galling because, while I don't think I am the
world's greatest communicator, I do think I am aware of my limitations and
sensitive to the kinds of issues described above.  I was certainly aware
of problems half-way through, when we gained an extension for more work;
at that point I knew I was not involving the client, but had not grasped
the extent of the problem.

While my *internal* process might be described as agile - many small
cycles, code always close to deployable, etc - I failed to implement what,
to me at least, seems to be agile's greatest tool: client participation. 
And the key to client participation, in this case, would have been
adaption of the existing system.

Andrew

Comment on this post