Clean Interviewing at Work

Photo by Alex on Unsplash

At work, I need to talk to people at work to understand their perspectives on how the organization functions. A large University is similar to a small town. We have lots of buildings and green space, a lake, car parks roads and buildings. And security guards. And lots of people trying to achieve their goals in different ways. We’ve campuses in the UK and Asia too, links to a large teaching hospital and our own Arts Theatre. We’re complex.

I’m collecting information for User Journeys for people working, studying teaching and researching. If we help these people reach their goals, the University reaches it’s goals too. We’re structurally coupled to their success. The success of students, staff, and faculty is the success of the University.

An example of a user journey is below. We can see how someone experiences traveling with Lego.

To collect information I’m talking to people using ideas from Clean Interviewing. My goal is to find out what people think using their own words. I’d like them to see the maps I build and recognize their journeys. By accurately reflecting their perspective I hope that they’ll advocate for the use of the maps.

In almost all aspects the conversations I have are normal. I’d not expect the person I’m talking to notice anything unusual. There really isn’t anything weird or unusual. Apart from the questions are usually of the following form, and use the exact words used. I don’t paraphrase.

A selection of the questions I use are:

  • What needs to happen here?
  • What is it called?
  • Is there anything else about <that>?
  • What happens before <that>?
  • Is there anything else that needs to be here, but isn’t?
  • What happens next?
  • Overall, is there anything missing?

What I’m doing is using a framework to develop a model of what things are, what they are called, and what needs to happen before and afterward. It’s a normal conversation, and every part doesn’t follow these rules. If there is something I’d need to find out, I’ll use a clean question.

These are really simple questions suitable for situations where I could assume that I knew what the words used meant, and what happened was the same as the other interviews I’d done. By removing the assumptions I believe I get better information.

Clean Interviewing is based on the work of David Grove, modeled by James Lawley and Penny Tomkins.  More details, including use in academic research settings, are on the Wikipedia entry. This blog post shows a very simple use of Clean Language Interviewing.

To learn more about Clean Interviewing there are events on https://cleanlearning.co.uk/events

Advertisements

Why would I care about Mikhail Bongard’s problems?

TL;DR It’s hard to solve problems that are open, experts won’t help, filter bubbles, why does it matter if you are angry reading all this, double loop learning Clean Feedback and anti-fragility.

Thanks to Chris Carter, Tomasz Glazer and Richard Harris for the discussions around this topic, and to Andrew J. Baker for feedback and pointers.

What are Mikhail Bongards problems, and why should I even care?

Quick Overview

Mikhail Bongard invented a type of puzzle called a Bongard Problem. These problems are interesting because you get to see all the answers. You need to work out the question. Bongard problems have two sets of six images. The solution to the problem is the explanation of the difference between the two.

Concave vs Convex edges

These inductive reasoning problems help us understand how we think in the real world. The book Goedel Escher Bach provides a methodology for solving Bongard problems, with a slant towards using Artifical Intelligence. At first the AI community thought these problems would a straightforward path to implementing AI. They’re not. And they’re much simpler than the other two examples of real-world Bongard Problems I’ll use.

This post discusses how these problems can be seen in the real world, and how they are connected to learning, and our approach to life.

How to Solve Bongard Problems

An example of Hofstadter’s methodology from Goedel Esher Bach is below. Note that this methodology is wrong for the problem that is being solved. I’ll call Goedel Esher Bach GEB from now on.

 

The method involves having a vocabulary for the domain, and an understanding what Gregory Bateson calls “the difference that makes a difference”.

Ninety-Nine Problems

Mikhail Bongards book Pattern Matching has one hundred problems. Solving these we can keep adding to the “difference that makes a difference”. We can build a list of all the heuristics we need, becoming an expert in this set of Bongard Problems.

When this list exists we have a vocabulary that gives two different approaches available to someone new to the problems.

Approach One, an open problem

This first approach is when you don’t know what the potential rules are. For example, you don’t if there is a rule that “If the pictures were physical and upright, their center of gravity would make them unstable”.

If you don’t know what the potential rules are, the potential number of solutions is unlimited, and you’re going to invent some potential solutions that are not used. So you could make new never been seen Bongard problems from these guesses.

How may these problems be seen by an expert in the original 100 problems?

Approach Two, you know the rules

The second approach is solving the same set of problems, but you have the language of all the solutions. This doesn’t make the problems trivial, but it’s a different type of problem. You have expert knowledge in the domain, and you’re doing pattern matching. You can combine patterns, but you might not be looking for new ones.

The difference that makes a difference

I’ll use a distinction between knowing all the solutions in advance, and not know them in the following three examples. I’ll then add the extra case where you think you know all the answers, but there may be other answers. Or put another way, you have a consistent explanation for how the world around your problem works.

I’ll use three examples

  • Playing the tabletop game Zendo
  • Understanding Organizational Strategy
  • Investigating unlawful credit card harvesting from your website

Example 1: Zendo

Zendo is a board game based on Bongard problems, using inductive logic. It used 3 shapes in three colours, and the idea is that a particular configuration of coloured shapes is given on a card, and players need to create structures that follow the rule on the card, and then win by correctly guessing the rule. So the Bongard problem is a configuration of shapes that is correct, and one that is wrong. You get to offer new configurations and see if they match the pattern that is the difference that matters between the two shapes.

Example 2: Organizational Strategy

Consider the case when a company makes some strategic actions. What is their new strategy? How has it changed? There will be some visible action, so one half of your Bongard Problem is the organization running one strategy, the other is the organization with the current strategy.
If you can figure out their change of strategy you can react to it with your own. If you fail to understand their strategy or carry on regardless you may go out of business.

Examples 3: Computer Crime

In this article, David Gilbertson describes how he’s hidden some code to harvest credit card details in a website that the reader may either own or use. Many website use frameworks that have a load of code imported into the pages. The data theft is viable.

In this example one half of the Bongard problem is your unhacked site, the other is a potentially hacked version. The Bongard problem is to prove that there is a difference. i.e. You’ve been hacked.

Example 1: What happens when I play Zendo with the kids

When I first played Zendo with the family I chose not to look at the cards describing the patterns that we could look for, and I didn’t show the family. We started from scratch and didn’t have a vocabulary.

It was very frustrating to play, and we made some crazy guesses.

The vocabulary on the cards includes orientation, colour, number, and layout. Doorstop, cheesecake, and tower were in the solution vocabulary.

Cheesecake, Doorstop, and vertical orientation.

We could now attempt the easy questions. Having a vocabulary is a required part of solving the problem in GEB.

When my son decided to choose a medium difficulty question we started with the usual guesses, but when we didn’t seem to be getting close we started to get agitated. We didn’t know the rules of the problem domain. More precisely, we didn’t have the vocabulary for the potential patterns. The temptation to ask for a clue or to give up was huge, because this was a game, and games are supposed to be fun. We did, however, have loads of crazy guesses that were not on the game cards. Failure is frustrating, especially if you are not expecting it.

Zendo with work colleagues

I then played the game with the Systems Thinking group where I work. I didn’t give my colleagues any information about the vocabulary or patterns. They were quickly able to create new patterns that matched the rule but couldn’t describe the exact rule that was written on the card I was using.

“The yellow wedge is in the cheesecake orientation” said Francis

The problem they had was there were two potential orientations for one of the pieces but without knowing this it was not a difference they noticed. As the photo above shows, the wedge shape can be in the ‘cheesecake’ or ‘doorstop’ orientation. If we’d read the instructions this would have been obvious. If we don’t have a name for something we have a hard time spotting it. Even if it is the difference that makes a difference.

After this game, without looking at the potential Bongard problems Tomasz helpfully created a problem that wasn’t on any of the cards. He put together some clear blue and yellow pieces. His pattern rule was “structures that can look green”. He’d created a new type of problem, unconstrained by rules. (EDIT : Tomasz was unconstrained by ‘being an expert’)

Structures that look ‘green’, Tomasz Glazer.

How might an experienced player who is familiar with all the vocabulary and patterns on the cards go about solving this problem?

Example Two: Strategy

In business, our competitors’ strategies are unknown to us. They may be easy to spot, or they may confound us.(explained in Patterns of Strategy). There are examples of strategies on the web, that suggest a more complete list exists (here is a great list of Strategic Gameplay from Simon Wardley).

By Simon Wardley
@swardley

 

 

 

 

I’m not familiar with all the strategies listed above, but I can recognize a few of them in the wild.

We are unlikely to get a clue from our competitors, but we can ‘give up’ and have a strategy of just carrying on what we’re doing, head in the sand. We think our strategy is fine.
We know there are more strategic possibilities out there. It’s not clear to me if there is a definitive list of strategies available that is considered complete.

Is a new strategy possible? I think it should be. Does knowing all previous strategies help? I’m not sure. Is it possible to think up new strategies that are not covered by known ones? I don’t know enough to know. Is strategy an open or closed problem?

Example Three: Fighting Computer Crime

After describing how he would insert code to harvest credit card details on websites, David Gilbertson goes through the ways that the reader, who is likely to be knowledgeable on computer security, would use to discover the exploit code. These ways are the patterns and vocabulary to solve the problem.

David then systematically shows how each of our ways of finding the code is flawed and sows enough doubt that we may not find his code.

We thought we had a full set of tools, but it’s clear we don’t. We can’t choose whether to learn our knowledge is flawed, it’s forced upon us. It’s a painful read, and it probably makes people angry enough to prove him wrong!

What’s just happened?

Thanks to Andrew J Barker (@ajbkr) from Tech Nottingham Slack for pointing me in this direction, but any mistakes here are mine.
What is happening when we face an open inductive logic puzzle and we don’t know the full range of answers? I’d suggest that we’re not just learning the answer, but we are double loop learning (see wikipedia, by Chris Aygryis). Our current problem-solving skills are not enough. We’re recognizing this and by getting some new tools.

Double loop learning is not just realizing there is something to learn, like a new computer language, or musical instrument, and learning it. Double loop learning is finding that your old tools don’t work on the problem you’re facing, maybe never really did. Your old thinking probably got you into the mess you’re in. You need to make a fundamental change to the way you think, and can’t go back.

There is often an unavoidable event that triggers this sort of learning. Maybe your business fails, and you see how it was obvious there were problems if only you’d seen them. Or credit card details are stolen from your website. You can’t say it was someone else’s fault. Maybe your partner leaves you unexpectedly, and once you see the reason you kick yourself for not seeing it.

Once you’ve learned something like this, it’s hard to even imagine what it would be like not to know. The past is another country.

I think this sort of unavoidable situation that can’t be explained by your current knowledge is often the catalyst for double loop learning. But our brains don’t like the cognitive dissonance. They would rather explain events any other way.

This is why we get angry when playing Bongard games when we don’t know the range of answers, and why many companies strategy is to keep doing the same thing.

Anti Fragile People

Some event that could break a fragile version of ‘us’, or be endured by a robust ‘us’ actually makes us stronger when we learn from it.

The event needs to be capable of hurting us – or making us angry enough to put up defences.

So what is stopping us getting over the double loop learning wall and being Anti Fragile? And what can help us over the wall?

Single loop learning feels so much nicer than double loop learning. Double loop Learning required we get past the cognitive bias that says we have a consistent explanation for how the bits of the world we care about works.

What’s stopping us?

We’re stopping ourselves.

What can help us?

Unavoidable feedback from hard failures can make us stronger. The feedback can also be endured or can break us. Exposure to the thinking that comes from hard failure makes us uncomfortable.

In many circumstances, feedback structured in a way that helps us develop, by making it hard for us to ignore. The best example of this is Clean Feedback, by Caitlin Walker.
That’s another post.

Really, what’s stopping us?

There is a useful (but ultimately wrong) model of how our brains work, called the Triune Brain. This suggests that there are 3 areas, or thinking states that we use. The lowest brain is the Reptilian brain. This is the fight, flight or freeze response. Knowing we are physically safe keeps this brain quiet. Feeling unsafe activates this brain. A fight also can mean get angry…

If our Reptilian Brain is happy we can use the Mammalian Brain. This brain has higher functions and is kept happy by knowing the rules. This can be social rules, like where the loos are, if you can just go and get a drink, and what time lunch is. Not knowing the rules puts you in the Mammalian brain.

If you’re safe, and you know the rules, then you can use the Neo-Cortex, or learning brain. I’m going to suggests that this is more accurately called the Single Loop Learning Brain. You can learn a new Language, or how to use your current skills better. It’s mostly saying “Don’t worry, you know the answers. No dissonance here.

To put all this together

Example 1: Zendo

We’re playing a game. It’s supposed to be fun. But if we only know a few of the possible answers. We don’t know the rules. We’re in the Mammalian brain. We’re not happy. It’s not terrible, but it’s not exactly fun either. We want to be in our Neo Cortex, getting the answers right. Being an expert.

Before we play again we look at all the cards with the answers on. The game is now to remember these and pick the right one. You can do this, we’re an expert. It’s now more fun, but we’ve limited our creativity.

Example 2: Strategy

With our full list of potential strategies, we’re working in our neo-cortex. An expert doing pattern matching.
Is a complete list a barrier to your brain double loop leaning? During analysis do we come up with new strategies that are likely to be wrong in the particular example, or do we match what we know?

A Strategy Expert, yesterday.

Are strategy consultants experts? How would they see a brand new strategy if it presented itself?

Example 3 Credit Card Harvesting

This article is delicious. David sets up the reader with a situation that’s hard to dismiss out of hand. It’s a challenge to the expert. He then uses the experts’ heuristics and shows how they are wrong. I imagine there may be a few angry readers.

Has this article about double loop learning offered any specific examples of double loop learning to the readers? Will it change anyone’s mind? Does it make people angry? Why is this article wrong?

So what?

To wrap all this up

  • There are open and closed problems
  • These can be played using Zendo, and the differences can be seen
  • Being an expert has some potentially negative consequences
  • Knowing the language to describe your problem could mean you miss things you don’t have a name for
  • Is this a difference described by being an engineer, and a scientist?
  • Unless using something like Clean Feedback, you need to be uncomfortable to experience double loop learning – learning that challenges your current way of doing things.
  • If you avoid discomfort you’re unlikely to learn how to act in the world better
  • What else can we do to learn about our understanding of the world?
    • A colleague suggested Drugs…
  • Talking to people we disagree with and understanding how they are cognitively consistent (or right…). I guess this can also be combined with the drugs 😉
  • What does this mean for our facebook and twitter filter bubble?
    • When someone makes us angry is it a chance to learn?
    • Or do we block and unfriend?

Knowing if the problem you’re solving is likely to be open or closed is a great starting point.

So lastly there are the Strategy problems I mentioned. Are they an open problem where new strategies are being thought up, or a closed one where they are all in a big book of experts strategy?

This may be a good direction to look in the future.

The Problems of Mikhail Bongard

"The Men in the Moon: or, the 'Devil to pay.' With thirteen cuts [by George Cruikshank], etc. [A satirical poem-chiefly in reference to the proceedings of Messrs Cobbett, Hunt, and others.]"

This post is thinking in progress. I’d love feedback.

 

 

 

How we are educated to become problem solvers

We learn problem-solving by looking at problems that have solutions. This is how our success at problem-solving is measured in school. If we’re lucky we can look in the back of the textbook for the answers, and figure out how to work towards them. This cuts problems in half, like starting to dig a tunnel at each end and hoping to meet in the middle. Starting from a question and an answer we’re simply filling in a method to get between the two. If we do well at this we call ourselves ‘problem solvers’ on our CV..

What are Bongard problems?

Mikhail Bongard invented visual pattern matching problems that reverse the normal style of the problem to be solved. We usually have a question and the answer needs to be found.

Bongard problems give you the answers, and you need to figure out “what’s the question here?”, “What’s happening?”.

From Wikipedia

The idea of a Bongard problem is to present two sets of relatively simple diagrams, say A and B. All the diagrams from set A have a common factor or attribute, which is lacking in all the diagrams of set B. The problem is to find, or to formulate, convincingly, the common factor

An example Bongard problem, the common factor of the left set being convex shapes (the right set are instead all concave).

From Godel, Escher, Bach

When looking at Bongard problems, we can look at the solutions to previous problems and build a list of potential answers to search through, as in the example below.

 

How did we get here, and where are we going?

Bongard problems ask – how did we get here? This is a significant difference to normal problem solving, but it gets better.
Working in a complicated domain, such as fixing problems in IT systems, we’re often asking “what needed to happen for this problem to occur”? Knowing this, fixing the issue is relatively straightforward, but not always easy. Things can still get very complicated, but it’s all potentially knowable.

Working in a complex domain (listen to Dave Snowden talk about complexity), which means any time when people are involved, what happened last time we did X may not have the same results this time.

So in complex domains,  why do we even care how we got here? I’d suggest because understanding how we got here may help us understand how the system we’re looking at is disposed to behave and because the modelling will require us to think hard about the issues (I can’t find a source for this).

How do we think hard about Bongard problems?

Bongard problems obey Occam’s Razor – “among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected or when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better.” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor)

Douglas R Hofstadter describes a process for solving Bogard problems in the epic book Godel, Escher, Bach. (Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid, Basic Books, Inc. New York, NY, USA ©1979 p646)

Bongard problem solving would have several stages in which raw data gradually gets converted to descriptions.

  • Raw data preprocessed
  • some salient features are detected
  •  The names constitute a mini vocabulary
  •  Drawn from a salient feature vocabulary
    •  line, segment, curve, horizontal, vertical, black, white, big, small, pointy, round.
  •  Second stage of preprocessing
    •  Triangle, circle, square, indentation, protrusion, right angle, vertex, cusp, arrow

 

  • Now the picture is ‘understood’ to some extent tentative descriptions are made
    • above, below, to the right of, to the left of, inside, outside, close to, far, parallel, perpendicular, in a row, scattered, evenly spaced, irregularly spaced
    •  Numerical descriptors
  • More complicated descriptors
    •  further to the right, less close to, almost parallel to

Hofstadter introduces an idea of a “description schema” or “templates” and the idea of “Sam” – a sameness director to help to solve Bongard Problems.

This is where I am. I think it’s possible to create a useful description schema or Sam for our real-life problems, using the systems approaches I’ve written about elsewhere on this blog.

Description schemas are types of weighted directed graphs, similar to the graphs used behind online recommendation engines. I’ve got a new job involving ontologies and graphs. Thanks for Ivo (@kvistgaard ) and Julian (@julianfej ‏)for help getting started with the ideas behind linked data. More work to come here.

Strengths and Clean Language Workshop #3

The Strengths and Clean Language workshop met weekly for a year, and then had 2 months off. Meeting again I was full of ideas that seemed to fit really easily. The workshop was Mike, Tomasz, Sarah, David and Richard.

I found a draft of this post from early 2107, and published it in December 2017.

We started off with the quote from Miles Davis. I’d been at a SCiO Systems Thinking Open Day, and I stole this image from Arthur Battram. Arthur’s presentation on the links between Miles Davis, Jazz and complexity and systems thinking was delightful. And he has a jazz hat. Arthur’s book is great too.

Organisational Metaphors

On the train home from SCiO I was reading Images of Organisations, by Gareth Morgan. This book discusses how Organisations, can be seen through the lens of eight different metaphors at the same time. Each metaphor will reveal and hide different behaviours and systems.

Gareth’s book is referenced in Open University Systems courses, O’Reilly’s Cloud Technology book Architecting Microservices, on Clean Language coaching websites, and is one of ribbonfarm.com’s recommended books. Too say that it’s influence is wide and varied is an understatement. It’s also usually less than £3 on ebay.

I’ll borrow Venkatesh’s overview of the metaphors that Gareth Morgan uses from ribbonfarm.com.

Organization as Machine: This is the most simplistic metaphor, and is the foundation of Taylorism. Any geometrically structuralist approach also falls into this category, which is why I have little patience for people who use words/phrases like top down, bottom-up, centralized, decentralized and so forth, without realizing how narrow their view of organizations is. The entire mainstream Michael-Porter view of business is within this metaphor.
Organization as Organism: This is a slightly richer metaphor and suggests such ideas as “organizational DNA,” birth, maturity and death, and so forth. I really like this one a LOT, and have so much to say about it that I haven’t said anything yet. I even bought a domain name (electricleviathan.com) to develop my ideas on this topic separately. Maybe one day I’ll do at least a summary here.

I introduced Gareth’s metaphors and the Miles Davis quote.

We’re heroes in our own story

Sarah commented ‘We’re all heroes in our own story. The way we look at things makes sense of thing so that we’re central in the story, and our actions make sense. Our (Clifton) Strengths may influence the story we tell. It story may also influence the metaphors we use to  understand and talk about the organisations we’re part of.’ Hero’s of our own story is something we’ll come back to. And as Miles says, if you understood my story, you’d be me….

Sarah also noted how she is interested in the perspectives of some metaphors, like the political system metaphor, but doesn’t like to get involved in politics, it wears you out.

We (well I) jumped to clean language here. I’m particularly interested in Clean Scoping Questions. The scoping questions are used to see if a Clean Language approach, usually revealing uncomfortable behaviour patterns, is wanted by the coaching client. Rather than face their own patterns, the client may just want a “diversity certificate”, or similar.

A quick overview is

What do you want to happen?

What needs to happen so that <answer to what you want to happen> is automatic?

What is happening right now?

The answer to what is happening right now usually contains unhelpful patterns of behaviour. Before looking at the patterns, we talked about how asking the question “What needs to happen so that what you want is automatic”, could be (uncleanly) asked in the context of Gareth Morgans metaphors.

So, “thinking about the situation using the brain metaphor, what do you want to happen?”

Or “thinking about the situation using the organism metaphor, what would you see and hear when <what you want to happen> is happening”.

I think we may try these questions in the group to see what occurs.

As a group we’re all familiar with the unhelpful reflex patterns of behaviour described by Barry Oshry, and the alternative ‘balcony’ behaviours that we can use if we see the reflexive patterns in time.

In her book “From Contempt to Curiosity” Caitlin Walker describes using the Karpman Drama triangle to describe a set on unhelpful behaviours “Persecutor, Victim and Rescuer” that are seen in Clean Scoping. These patterns map really well onto Barry’s TOP / MIDDLE / BOTTOM behaviours we describe in Balcony and Basement terms.

Sarah suggested that people’s Clifton Strengths may influence the organisational metaphor they prefer to use – they’ll see the world in a way that sees their strengths positively.

There were some similarities between the Karpman Drama triangle behaviours, and the basement behaviours of TOP/MIDDLE/BOTTOM, Richard noted an overlay of balcony behaviours onto the Drama Triangle, making it a hexagon. The drama triangle seems to describe behaviour more easily the TOP/MIDDLE/BOTTOM, but Barry’s Model is a lot richer.

Each of the patterns on the Karpman Drama Triangle maps to Basement behaviour of TOP’s MIDDLEs and BOTTOMs. We noted how you can see Victim, Persecutor and Rescuer behaviour in TOP, MIDDLES and BOTTOMs.

A TOP who take responsibility because they feel they are removing their help from someone is engaging in victim behaviour. MIDDLES who side with one person over the other may be PERSECUTING one side of the other, before moving to victim and rescuing.

We had a good workshop, getting new approaches that increase our variety, allowing us to describe more situations and behaviours.

If you understood everything we said, you’d be us.

 

 

 

 

Know Yourself with a User Manual for You

Title: "The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes", "Single Works" Author: Doyle, Arthur Conan - Sir Shelfmark: "British Library HMNTS 012634.m.7.", "British Library HMNTS Cup.410.g.93." Page: 275 Place of Publishing: London Date of Publishing: 1892 Publisher: G. Newnes Issuance: monographic Identifier: 000977457This post uses a set of questions, called “User Manual for Me“, by Cassie Robinson. (ht Mike Watson @herdimmunity)

Cassie’s idea is that answering a set of questions about how you prefer to work and interact with people lets people can help you work together better. In an ideal world, you’d know more about people around you, and they’d know more about you.

These questions seem ideal for framing as clean interviewing questions, with following clean questions that can help the client get deeper knowledge of themselves. They can choose to share these insights with colleagues of not.

In this post I answer these questions for myself, and then suggest contextually clean following questions that could be asked.

 

Warning Required?

I’ve had a mixed reaction when talking to friends and colleagues about Cassie’s questions, which all came down to safety. If you’re in a team and everyone wants to do this it would be great. If there is anything like hostility this soft of thing in the team then it’s not something people seem happy about. If you’re in charge, don’t force this on anyone.

Warnings aside, if you’re in a good team, or want to know this to share with a few colleagues then these questions are excellent in helping others understand you.

In this post I’ve suggested contextually clean versions of the questions, and contextually clean follow ups questions to my answers.

What are Contextually Clean Questions?

Clean Interviewing is a way of asking purposeful questions that contain a minimum amount of the questioners thoughts, ideas, opinions and suggestions. These questions are contextually clean.

Clean Interviewing allows the client to express their understanding with the minimum influence from the questioner, and can lead to unexpected insights.

More information is on the Clean Language Wikipedia page which has been recently updated by James Lawley.

The contextually clean versions of the questions pretty much wrote themselves. Cassie’s heading were pretty clean already. I’ve added some contextually clean follow-up questions to my own answers in green, as an example of how the User Manual questions could be followed up with contextually clean questions.

By Cassie Robinson

My Answers and some potential follow-up questions

Contextually Clean follow-up questions in green.

Conditions I like to work in.

(Contextually Clean Question: What are the conditions you like to work in?)

I need variety. I get ideas by talking to people and hearing their ideas and perspectives. The conversations don’t need to start with the goal of having an idea. I like face to face interaction.

Is there anything else about the ideas from face to face interaction?

If I’m reading detailed information, or doing technical problem solving then I work best alone, but I need to get feedback on my work if I’m not making progress. I can stubbornly bang my head against a problem for far too long. It’s effective, but perhaps not always efficient.

(There is already a contextually clean question about feedback later.)

I need to read and annotate paper copies. I don’t read or understand well off a screen. Sorry trees.

I move around to get unstuck, or if I’ve got something to think about. I work well on the move.

Are some ways of moving better than others?

Is there anything else about getting unstuck?

The times/hours I like to work

(Contextually Clean Question: What are the times and hours you like to work?)

I start thinking early, when I wake up. I re-run what I learned the day before, and plan for the day before getting out of bed. Cycling to work is time when I work through problems, so I arrive primed. I then really like to make progress. Meetings and major task switching here can really stop progress for the day.

What happens when you re-run what you learned the day before?

Is there anything else that needs to happen before you’re primed?

After lunch I’m better at discussing ideas and meetings, unless I already shared the ideas I had in the morning. Mid afternoon I get a second window to work well on technical problems.

Is there anything that needs to happen before the second window to work on technical problems.

I read and write well in the mornings and evening, from 9.30 till about 11.15pm.

If something is difficult and interesting enough I’ll be mentally working on it all the time…

What makes something interesting enough for you to be mentally working on it all the time?

The best way to communicate with me

(Contextually Clean Question: What way of communication is best for you?)

I like communication to be in person, followed by a written overview of any actions I have. I work best if I understand your purpose, and goals. I’ll figure out the best way I can help you reach them.

How do you like someone to express their purpose and goals?

How would you figure out the best way to help?

I’ll also tell you if I can’t make sense of your purpose and goals. I’m good at juggling multiple perspectives, so I like these perspectives to be in the open.

The ways I like to receive feedback

(Contextually Clean Question: How do you like to receive feedback?)

I like feedback to be quick, and to include context. Face to face feedback is best, as I can misunderstand written feedback easily.

I like feedback to focus on what I did, and ideally to  suggest areas for improvement, without being prescriptive. I’m continually increasing my understanding of how I work and learn. I need feedback for this.

Things I need

(Contextually Clean Question: What do you need to be at your best?)

I need to understand purpose. I’m not the best at following a process, without understanding why. I may need someone to listen if I have an idea for improving a process too. That’s what I’m good at.

Where do your ideas for improving a process come from?

I need to be trust to do the right thing. I sometimes express an idea that doesn’t seem to follow from the facts. I need people to ask me to fill in the gaps in my thinking and explanation.

Where do the ‘gaps’ in your thinking and explanation come from?

I need something to be curious about.

What’s that curiosity like?

I need reminders for things I may have forgotten, and for people to ask how it’s going.

Things I struggle with

(Contextually Clean Question: What do you find difficult? I think the difficult is cleaner than struggle..)

I struggle following a process, and using ‘we just followed the process’ as an excuse when we knew there were problems.

When following a process, what would you like to have happen?

I struggle with making sense of dense text when a diagram would work better. I may miss an important point if it’s hidden in lots of unimportant text.

My short term memory is almost non existent. it’s not a reflection on my intelligence.

Things I love

(Contextually Clean Question: What things do you love?)

I love

  • a challenge
  • designing and building things that other people find useful
  • learning and making useful connections between ideas
  • The ‘aha’ moment when something clicks
  • bullet points
  • helping people with the things above, and solving their problems

What happens before you build something people find useful?

Other things to know about me

(What would you like people to know about you?)

I need to draw something to explain it to you. Even if there is a perfectly good drawing in front of me, I need to draw it again while talking.

I like ideas. I can sometimes be a bit enthusiastic. I like to talk.

I can often quickly analyse a situation, and figure out a course of action, or the events that led up it. I can think this much quicker than I can articulate why. I quickly model situations, and run accurate scenarios against them.

Extra Question Suggestion

How I learn things

(Contextually Clean Questions: How do you learn things?)

I learn things best when they extend something I already know. It’s like a need a hook to hang new information on. I also need to learn the principles, context, and any constraints to the information or tools I’m using. When I learn things I’ll remember them by understanding the principles and context, rather than the facts and process.

How do you get hooks to hang new information on?

I’ll learn something new by relating it to the information I already have, and any similarity of context, patterns or constraints.

 

I hope to ask these questions with friends and colleagues soon.  Know Yourself is a popular phrase in philosophy and I think Cassie’s questions, followed up with Clean Interviewing questions is a great way to start knowing.

 

Caving with Plato

IMAG1229

The Squares have uniform colour but are not flat

I recently spend a morning at The Design Museum in London. The Breathing Colour exhibition by Hella Jongerius was great. There was a quote from the guide “A Shadow Philosophy” p24 Breathing Colour, Hella Jongerius. It links Plato’s philosophy to the work on our perception of colour.

We don’t see colour in an unbiased way. Lighting, shadows and materials all affect how we see things in the world.

Plato’s Cave; Understanding of the world is derived from shadows cast on the wall from passing objects. The shadows are the prisoners reality, not the objects that cast them. The prisoners have no experience of real objects, and yet they give names to them, and extract an understanding of them, purely from the shadows.

If they step outside the cave and see the real world, they cannot go back. Their colleagues in the cave would not believe them of the world outside.

Outside in the Real World

Those outside see a true world, and it’s so much richer, with only the shadows cast by reality being seen by those in the cave. How privileged we are to see the world as we do.

What we see of the world outside is seen through our biased lenses. There is so much we can’t see, either because of a physical bias, like the spectrum of the wavelengths we see and hear, or because we can only really see the things we have name for, that make it through our cognitive biases, because they are unusual, and we’re paying attention. Or maybe they reinforce what we believe.

We cannot ‘see’ things that we cannot name. To understand new things we need a new language. Knowing that our perceptions are biased we should seek out as many viewpoints that use different language to describe what is seen if we care about getting out of our cave.

Caves all the way down

We should also know that outside of our cave, we’re just in another cave, seeing and talking about things that people who never left the old cave can’t comprehend.

The understanding we get from the shadows on the wall of our cave are all we have, and all we can have. We’re working with our limited and biased information receptors, and we can only see using the bandwidth provided by our current lens, our current cave.

Limits of Metaphors

Metaphors revel and conceal insights. Their power is also their weakness. When writing this I first used the metaphor of the cave ‘above’ and ‘below’. Above / Below suggests a hierarchy of caves and knowledge. This made me feel uneasy  with above being better and below worse, and there being a top cave. So I changed it to say different. I feel happier with this. There isn’t a place where we can see see reality outside of our biases.

In fact, Anil Seth argues that our brains hallucinate our reality. Reality is our brains filling in the gaps in the limited information we have.

What we perceive has as much to do with out internal pattern matching than what is received though our receptors. Our internal pattern matching depends on the patterns we’ve matched before. Ouch, we’re locked in our cave.

This has big implications when talking to others about our ideas, and we are looking for the right thing to do. How do we know when we have enough ways of looking at things?

This short video on Plato’s Cave below suggests that people get angry when their ignorance is pointed out. Plato was killed for his beliefs, and he likes pointing out other people’s ignorance. It could be that a perspective that makes you angry is the one that you don’t want to be without?

When we’re looking to make or suggest the right thing to do, how can we know we’ve got enough perspectives?

Critically challenging our understanding

An approach called Critical Systems Heuristics (CSH) may help us to systematically challenge our perspectives. CSH asks us, and the people affected by the situation to challenge the decision boundaries in use for proposed action. Asking are these shadows on the wall sufficient? Do I need to go to a different cave?

In CSH we get others to answer the same questions we’ve answered and we see the differences.

This diagram from Sjon van ’t Hof shows how we can question motivation, power, knowledge and legitimacy.

csh

I’m suggestion that there is no correct answer to the question of how many perspectives. There isn’t a hierarchy that can be scaled, but we can be critical of the decisions we make in a repeatable systematic way, and be open to challenge.

There may not be a reality out there, but we can still try to understand and act in the best way we can.

 

 

 

 

 

Clean Interviewing for Technology conversations

giraffe, chris barbalis.

Alternative title:

Writing Software, hardest job in the world, 40 years man and boy…

Writing software that meets people needs, that is.

What’s the problem with just talking to people to find out what they want?

When we talk to people, we use shortcuts that help us to understand. We assume that what the other person means by, say ‘website’, ‘connection’, ‘usability’ or even ‘tested’.

Shared understandings can work fine, but very often problem arise when we think we have an understanding that isn’t there. Meetings can start and finish without the attendees really understanding the models in each others heads, and spend time discussing their unknown lack of understanding, rather than the pressing concerns.

Perhaps the HIPPO (HIghest Paid Person in the rOom) gets the last say, based on their unexplained model?

We let the things in our head get in the way of understanding the things that we’re trying to understand in other people’s heads. It’s our brains relentlessly finding patterns and connections to make life easier for itself. We need to act differently.

Clean Interviewing

Clean Interviewing, rooted in David Grove’s Clean Language, is a way of structuring conversations in a way that is incredibly effective in finding out the information inside someone’s head, without influence from the stuff in your head.

Alongside the questioning is the approach to questioning that is best describes showing curiosity towards a person or situation.

When talking to other people we often think that our stuff is like their stuff. Our idea of something is the same as theirs. This is great quick social glue, but if we are coaching someone, or trying to find out something in particular , our unknown lack of understanding can get in the way.

Think of an Elephant. (Or a Website).

An example of this is to ask a group to “think of an elephant”, and then ask them to describe their elephants. None will be the same, some will be close up, or cartoon elephants, or an elephant in a specific place. Questions like ‘Hear Music’ or ‘Think of an ideal day at the beach’ also show how we can really not know what someone is thinking. If you asked me to organise an ideal day at the beach for you, you may not get what you like. You’d get what I like.

Unlike coaching, when we’re interviewing, the interviewer gets to decide the purpose of the conversation. There is an agreed subject to discuss, and this will often be something that has happened in the past, or will happen in the future.

In technology, I’ll suggest Clean Interviewing helps:

  • Discussing the model in the customers, product owner and  develops head
  • In Incident postmortems to discover what happened in safe environment
  • When reviewing work, looking for what went well and lessons learned
  • When getting requirements from a customer for software

 

So what is Clean Interviewing?

Clean Interviewing is a style of asking questions that have roots in Clean Language questions designed by David Grove. Davids questions remove the model, ideas and worldview of the person asking the questions.

We can use Clean Interviewing when we want to find out about

  • Someones favourite holiday destination
  • The needs they would like to have met with software
    • Their goals
    • The way they work with others
  • Their ideal
    • Team
    • Programming Language
    • Work Environment

Examples of Clean and Contextually Clean Questions

A contextually clean question takes the basis of a clean question for example, keeping the speakers context out of the question, and adding the exact words used in the answers.

  • Is there anything else about that X
  • What happens before X?
  • ..and that’s X like what?

Clean Interviewing adds context that is known by both parties, so you can use words used by the other person, or are known in the context of the conversation

So for discussions about developing a new website

  • What happens before people get to your website?
  • Is there anything else about a customers order?
  • and what happens before a customers order?
  • and that’s interactive like what?
  • and is there anything else about that data?
  • and that’s a customer journey like what?
  • and that’s individual user experience like what?
  • Is there anything else about individual user experience?
  • (and for people who know me) ..and that’s digital like what?

The words in italics are the interviewees own words, or things that are known in context of the conversation.

Of course you cannot have all the questions lined up before you start, you’ll use the words given to you to build an understanding of someones mental model.

Writing Software, hardest job in the world, 40 years man and boy, etc

Software is a set of instructions, running on a machine that follows instructions really well. It’s the ultimate machine. The code never gets tired, or goes rusty, or deviates from the configuration. This is powerful.

People wanting software to meet their needs have models in their head of their problem and solution. Those models can be incomplete, or unconstrained by reality. In an agile Scrum team it’s the job of the Product Owner and the developers to build something that meets the customers needs.

I’d suggest that this is much harder than for example tailoring clothes or even writing a song for someone.

Bridging the gap between the models in someone’s head, and the constraints of software is a huge task. Clean Interviewing can help with understanding requirements.

This post was inspired by a session at Northern Taste of Clean, facilitated by James Lawley and Caitlin Walker..