9.6. Exploiting Human Weaknesses
One of mankind's greatest psychological weaknesses is that we jump to conclusions too easily. Competent software architects can turn this weakness into a strength for their software organization and the software industry. By creating compelling reference models of software knowledge, we lead our organizations to the appropriate conclusions.
Software architects command extensive knowledge about software technology, software organizations, and real-world business processes that our systems support. Knowledge is power—in this case, the power to change perceptions. For most people, perception is reality. Reference models are the pattern of the solution for transforming perception into real-world success. Let's explore some examples.
Reference models are commonplace in other fields of human endeavor. They facilitate successful practice in sales, investment, journalism, public relations (PR), economics, psychology, digital hardware design, and consulting. A classic sales reference model is: person, organization, goals, and obstacles (POGO). The analogous reference model for investment analysis is: strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT). Journalists and PR professionals use a reference model comprising six questions. These reference models provide an invaluable structure for human discourse that assures quality. Interestingly, many of these models have been incorporated into software standards and practice. For example, the Zachman Framework adopted the journalistic reference model directly. The Reference Model for Open Distributed Processing (RM-ODP) assimilated models from economics and psychology to standardize software architecture viewpoints.
The Hardware Design Level Model (HDLM) has been used in digital engineering practice for more than two decades. HDLM separates design context and forces, so that every EE student learns in college how to design and optimize digital logic circuits with relative ease. Reference models simplify problem solving, so that ordinary professionals can practice their disciplines with world-class results.
Hence the contradiction: Why haven't reference models been used to structure effective software practice? In our opinion, the most effective reference models are unknown by the profession and academia—for example, the Software Design Level Model and RM-ODP. Other powerful reference models have been imposed with unfortunate consequences. For example, Capability Maturity Model (CMM) certification has become the software equivalent of the Spanish Inquisition. Articulating reference models so that they assist in individual decision making is a kinder, gentler way to reform software practice, and ultimately more effective.
Reference Models as Perception
Applying the classic reference model for consulting intervention, there are three basic questions that the readers (software architects) should consider:
What is the problem? Reference models are basic intellectual tools that are virtually nonexistent in software practice. Effective reference models exist but are relatively unknown by the profession. The corpus of software knowledge is not expressed in terms of reference models. The lack of reference models inhibits our profession from separating design forces and evolving software into an engineering discipline with successful, predictable outcomes.
Software professionals need reference models in order to understand abstractions. For example, the founders of the software design patterns movement (The Hillside Group) have claimed that four out of five software developers cannot abstract effectively. The Hillside Group's classroom experience is supported by Meyers-Briggs surveys of the general population; only 20% of adults have the appropriate world-perspective to define abstractions. Reference models are a necessity in the confusing, rapidly changing technology environment in which we practice.
What are you (software architects) doing to contribute to the problem? This question leads to a Gestalt turnaround: What can we (software architects) do to resolve the problem? We can learn the available, effective reference models for software. We can educate and evangelize the profession toward the use of existing, effective reference models. When we see an important issue unresolved by available models, we can create a new model, optimize it, and contribute it to the corpus of software knowledge. The instantaneous global reach of the Internet make this imminently feasible. We can mentor our peers constantly about reference models, design patterns, and other forms of software problem solving. We (software architects) can take responsibility for our part of the mind-boggling problems and opportunities that the software industry is confronting. Through the articulation of reference models, we can help the software profession become more enjoyable and successful.
Biological Response Model
One of the most universally useful reference models describes biological response (Figure 9.1). This model shows what happens as a biological system is stressed to various degrees. It can be used to describe how people behave, psychologically, when stimulated, and how people can change their minds or behaviors. It is also a good description of how you might respond to external stimulation, so with an understanding of this model, you can choose to follow your biological instincts or choose another path.
Figure 9.1. Biological Response Model
The biological response model works according to various stages of excitement. Initially, if the stimulation is small, it is ignored, either deliberately or unconsciously. Consciously our response might be: "It's not important" or "I'm ignoring it." Biologically we are drawn toward small stimuli.
As the intensity of stimulation increases, our attraction changes and we are increasingly repelled. The next level of psychological response is denial, or deliberate ignorance. In denial, we deny the truth or existence of a stimulus event. We turn away from it. We do this automatically; it's human nature, which makes it very difficult to control this part of the response.
As stimulation continues to increase, so does excitation. When a stimulus becomes impossible to deny, we become angry—or joyful—depending upon the situation. It is not possible to maintain a high level of excitation indefinitely. So, in short order, psychological energy is released, such as an angry display or laughter.
If the stimulation persists beyond a state of excitation, then we experience depression (sadness) or a state of acceptance. Further stimulation above this level of intensity can be fatal.
In psychological warfare we use the biological response model to our advantage, because for most people these are automatic responses of which they are not consciously aware. In fact, some people are so unaware of their own responses that they may not even know when they are angry, until they erupt in an excited frenzy. "Gone ballistic" is the popular phrase for this behavior.
We use this model by adjusting the intensity of our architectural evangelism according to the situation and desired outcome. In some cases, we want to get something accepted without much controversy. This is called "flying under the radar screen." We keep the message at a very low level of intensity and mention the matter infrequently. In some cases, we want people to take notice and to change what they are doing in accordance with our ideas. In this case, we may want to push them right over the top of the model and get them very excited about the concept, with a goal toward changed behavior (acceptance instead of ignorance or resistance).
Group Applications of Response
The biological response model can also be applied to the facilitation of groups, although we are straying from the biological origins of this model when we do so. In theory, each of us individually has a group inside our minds, formed through early childhood experiences. This reference model indicates that we all have interactions between members of our internal group. Real groups are the extension of this concept into interpersonal interactions. So we use these concepts to explain that, if the response model applies to individuals, then it can also be extrapolated to groups.
As the model implies, people often get excited about something before they change their behaviors and accept it. Laughter is one way to push groups over the top and into release and acceptance. Laughter is a great way to diffuse successful situations and win arguments. The experience of laughter involves a high level of excitation and leads to an immediate release of stress (i.e., exactly what we're seeking). Some of the best comedy is self-effacement—in other words, making fun of yourself. Watch standup comedians on television to learn more. Particularly watch for humor based upon self-effacement. Also, the worst kind of humor relates to human body parts. You will see professional comedians use this kind of humor too often for their own good. Avoid this kind of humor at all costs, for reasons such as political correctness.
In groups, we tend to link response models together, so that we create waves of responses. Since death is seldom an option, we continue beyond each state of acceptance into a new curve of excitement. Repeatedly we want to bring individuals and groups to a high level of interest and excitement, make a decision, then move on to the next matter. Meeting facilitation, covered in other chapters, uses the principles of biological response with groups in this way.
We use meeting breakouts to enable people to create something (anything as a first draft), so that they often have ownership and are excited about defending it. It also gives us a starting point for discussion, even if it's bad. We then give them their chance to defend it in public. That's very exciting for the presenter. If the presentation provokes a response from the audience, then he or she can become very excited too. Good things are happening. We have experienced group excitement in very positive and negative senses. Either way is equally beneficial from the facilitator's perspective. In either sense, an excited group is a group that can make decisions and implement choices vigorously. The last thing we want is a group that's falling asleep. In that case, behaviors won't change and little progress is made.