Pramatr Blog

After working in the technology industry for many years, I’ve had the pleasure of working with many avid gamers. Some of these are occasion players, but I’ve also worked with those that spent endless evenings and early mornings playing MMOs. The water cooler gaming banter is a regular occurrence; with discussions of last nights raid and the weekend guild meeting. It was therefore quite interesting when I started to read January’s edition of the gaming magazine edge which talked about hiring these same gamers.

“He replied that employers instruct him not to send them World of Warcraft players. He said there’s a belief that WOW player can’t give 100 per cent as their focus is elsewhere, their sleeping patterns aren’t great, etc. I mentioned that some people have written about MMOG leadership as a career positive, and he shook his head.”

After a little searching I found the original source of this quote and the proper context in which it was delivered. Although the opinion was that of a single recruiter and was merely a brief comment in a conversation, it seems to have generated a surprising amount of publicity (nearly 90k hits on the forum alone). Much of this was no doubt due to the telephone game nature of how this story was reported; in some reports it was a job interview, in others a huge employeer. The story had a life of it’s own and was reported in various incarnations, some widely inaccurate from the original. It did however touch a nerve and I was forwarded the same link several times from both gamers and none gamers.

It wasn’t so many months ago that I was reading about “the striking similarities between the skills required for online gaming and those required for real world leadership”. Jim Spohrer, Director of Services Research IBM said, “What we’ve found is that success as a business leader may depend on skills as a gamer”. Some people even went as far as to say that these games should be thought of as “a potential educational medium for complex social skills”. Others even contemplated resumes that include a line reading “level 60 tauren shaman in World of Warcraft.”

I have come across many hardcore MMO gamers who poses in-game qualities that any employer would jump at, but do these really translate into real world qualities? Are guild masters really project managers or lead developers in another guise? I’ve seen guild masters that organize every part of their weekend raid but I really wouldn’t be confident of letting them run the project schedule. Virtual world skills may help improve real world skills but I personally haven’t seen a correlation between the two. Guild masters may make great project managers but I wouldn’t personally use this status as an indication of potential ability.

Since reading the quote in the edge magazine, I’ve read more negative opinions about the impact these games have on individuals. Some anecdotal observations claim that playing these games is causing college drop-outs and led to people neglecting their studies. The results from a small poll even showed that 55% of people thought that MMO gaming affected their own school or work performance. The sample is small, but it’s still quite interesting that the very people playing the game claim it affects their own performance. Many follow up comments from the original story come to a similar conclusion; playing games makes you a less effective employee. But is that really true?

Balance and separation seem to be the dominating factors. Those gamers that I’ve really enjoyed working with were able to leave their gaming lifestyle at home, it’s something they do in an evening but it doesn’t take over their life. Those that really cause headaches think nothing of discussing group tactics and tech tree analysis during work, with the lunchtime forum reading quite easily turning into an afternoons reading. Morning naps are a common occurrence to make up for lost sleep when they were too busy the night before slaying the latest boss. But is this really any different to any other evening activity?

Everyone spends their spare time in different ways, but if that spare time activity starts affecting work on a regular basis, an employeer is completely justified to be unhappy about this. It doesn’t have to be a late night playing games, it could quite easily be a late night at the local pub or 4am coding on your own pet project. It doesn’t matter if last night you were a Death Knight, a Shaman a Warlock or just out partying, if you come to work an absolute wreck and the rest of the team have to make up for it, that’s just not on. When hiring staff, level 70s need not apply?

Over time I’m frequently restructuring and refactoring the code I work on to improve the design and simplify many of the balls of mud I find along the way. If I break some of that code my unit tests shout at me and if they don’t my continuous integration environment shouts at me when I’ve broken one of the integration tests. One area of the code that doesn’t receive the same attention however is the documentation.

I love a well documented API as much as the next developer. I also am fighting a constant battle to improve my JavaDoc skills, trying to write to the same quality that I see in many other projects. But is excellent documentation really enough? It can’t just be excellent when it’s written it needs to be constantly maintained to this same level over time.

It’s a pretty common occurrence that I can look at a section of code and find documentation that has nothing to do with the method it belongs to. The intention revealing name sounds nothing like the documentation which describes what it’s supposed to be doing. Somewhere in the mists of time, the intention of the method and the documentation parted company; it is documentation no more it is ex-documentation. The problem here however is that there’s nothing to catch this issue. If an extra argument is added, Eclipse might display a warning telling me it’s missing from the documentation, but the actual context of the documentation can be completely wrong and I am none the wiser.

Although this incorrect documentation may seem fairly harmless to some, the reason it was supposed to be there in the first place is to the give the user of the API information on the method contract and the expected outcomes. If this information is completely wrong however it introduces confusion and also potential misuse of the API. After much wasted time and several grey hairs later I recently filed a couple of JIRA reports about popular open source frameworks which did exactly this. After my code just didn’t work and the unit tests failed, it took me a number of minutes to realise that the JavaDoc description of expected events just didn’t reflect what was actually going on in the code.

One approach to solving this problem is to include the documentation in the frequent code reviews. Code that doesn’t have documentation or has incorrect documentation can’t be considered complete, thus doesn’t pass the review. Developers need to make sure however, that they treat the documentation with the same respect that they give to their code and their tests. When dealing with documentation I’d much sooner see a method with no documentation than something that is completely wrong. I do want a good level of documentation in the code I work on but there is a very simple rule; update it or lose it.

Success! We’ve just released a new version of our software, this calls for a celebration. All the team march down to the local bar for a well earned beer or an orange juice for the designated driver. But what’s that annoying noise in my jacket pocket, my mobile phone’s ringing and it’s the boss. Some customers have just upgraded and now they are reporting serious problems with their systems, looks like we better get ready to play the blame game.

For those people who have never played the blame game before, we need to set out the rules. The rules are actually quite simple, if in doubt seek the advice of a seasoned player. The first rule of the blame game is, it’s never your fault. The second rule of the blame game is, it’s never your fault. The third rule of the blame game is, it’s always some one else’s fault. So now we’ve established the rules, we need to work out some tactics to work out whose fault it actually is.

The first candidate for blame always has to be the last person to leave the company. Anything that’s wrong can easily be blamed on them, after all they can’t defend themselves so they make an ideal target. The next candidate can be chosen from any of the temporary staff you currently employ, the shorter the contract the better. If you aren’t going to have to see these people for much longer, this should work out quite nicely. The next candidate is anyone that’s working for the company in another location (if it’s another country this works even better). You might have to work with these people again, but you’re probably not going to see them on a daily basis, it shouldn’t be too awkward. Now this is where your choices start to become a little tricky, you’re down to the people that you work with everyday.

You have to keep this simple and align yourselves with the strongest members of the team, after all this is survival of the fittest. Fit yourself nicely into the crowd and look for anyone that doesn’t quite fit, this is real back to basics school ground behaviour. Pick off the weak and vulnerable first as these shouldn’t put up much of a resistance, then work your way up the power hierarchy until you find your patsy. So there you have it, those are the basic tactics for the blame game you might have to tweak as appropriate within your organisation but the general approach should apply.

The most important decision you face when presented with the blame game is do you really want to play? If you decide that it’s really not for you, the best way to deal with it is to simply throw out all of the rules, rip the board in half, stamp your feet as hard as you can and shout out loud, “I refuse to play”. It is often said that; “we work in a blame free culture, until something goes wrong”. Are you really interested in finding someone to blame when something goes wrong? Will it really help the customer solve their problem any sooner if you’ve found the person to carry the can for the failure? In the time it takes to sit there and rack your brains for potential candidates to take the blame, you could already be investigating the cause of the problems and attempting to fix them. In his recent post Sean Landis said;

Successful Agile development presupposes that team members will all act like adults. That’s a euphemism for being competent and professional. Agile teams are expected to accept a high level of responsibility and accountability. When they don’t, things can fall apart really fast.

Regardless of how bullet proof a process claims to be, there are always going to be issues that weren’t found prior to the release. If issues are always going to occur, should teams really be allowed to turn on each other in response to them, will this really lead to a better working relationship? The most important thing is that problems are dealt with promptly and professionally when they arise. Instead of trying to assign blame, people should be responsible for their own actions, they need to learn from the experience and measures should be put in place (if possible) to prevent this happening again. Next time your team is out celebrating your latest release and your mobile phone starts to ring, do you really want to start playing the blame game?

The BBC reported on Tuesday that the recent disruptions caused by the heavy snowfall could cost UK businesses about £1bn (or $1.4bn as of 05/02/2009). It was also estimated that about 20% of the UK’s working population, or 6.4 million people, were absent from work. The bad weather has continued this week and is forecast to continue into the weekend. With the huge potential loses to the economy how can technology help?

Currently the roads are covered in snow, buses, trains and planes are cancelled and I’m stuck at home, and I’m costing my employer money. Some employers might expect you to turn up regardless of the weather. Some employers might take the “snow day” out of of next months wages. Some employers provide the means to let their employees work from home. It is obviously not logistically possible for every business to allow working from home, but what about the ones that can? In a quote from the BBC report, Keith Tilley said;

“Employers need to do everything they can to allow staff to work from home and ensure that those that do manage to travel to work are well looked after, with overnight accommodation if necessary.”

Many businesses are turning to technology to allow their employees to not only work from home during periods of bad weather but also during peak demand. These virtual call centres are proving extremely popular with more businesses turning to this technology to provide a more permanent solution. Many businesses could benefit from this approach but lack the technology to actually make it possible. Is this technology too expensive, too complicated or is there simply a lack of knowledge about it’s usage?

A quick search in Google yields a range of solutions that can make working from home very possible, one of the best is a VPN. At one end of the spectrum is OpenVPN which retails at £0 (or $0). It’s open source; download it, install it, configure it and you’re ready to go. There is obviously an associated learning curve, but for most people with a technological persuasion it should be quite straight forward. If you don’t want to have to install and maintain software, another top result is Barracuda SSL VPN which starts to retail at £1250 (or $1800). It’s an appliance; turn it on, configure it and you’re ready to go. Both solutions provide the means to be virtually on the network without having to be physically in the office. Access can be provided to email, file servers, internal Web sites and office workstations. As a developer I can access CVS, SVN, our Maven repository, Hudson build system and any other resource I use during my normal working day. I can be just as productive (often more so) as if I’m really in the office.

There are a whole range of products that allow employees to work from home, but there really should be something to suit every businesses budget. Some businesses worry about letting employees work from home, but even if the technology is only used for extreme or emergency purposes, at least a business can suffer near zero downtime. Even if the technology is only used once or twice a year, it can still provide a return on investment for the smallest of companies. We currently have six team members connected to our SSL VPN, our business is counting the cost of the bad weather, but fortunately for us it should be somewhere near £0 ($0).

Hiring new staff can be a long and drawn out process, at the end of which you hope you’ve found the right candidate. Vetting resumes, collating a list of potential candidates, telephone screening and then eventually bringing them in for an interview…….. so what’s the plan? This is the most important decision you’re going to make about your interview process; do you give them the list of technical questions, some example code or should you include the the rubik’s approach?

The List of Technical Questions

The candidate is presented with a list of technical questions that start with basic questions and slowly move towards more difficult ones. These could be about language specifics, API’s they claim to know or anything technical that is related to their potential position. Anyone with a basic knowledge of development principles stands a good chance of getting a reasonable score with the basic questions. Most people can memorise answers to the general technical questions, but does that really give you an insight into their ability?

The Example Code Test

The candidate is asked to write some general purpose code or possibly something resembling code they might be expected to work on. Anything general should be quite straight forward for the candidate, but anything that expects them to write code to specific API’s could produce undesirable results. If the candidate has claimed to have a good working knowledge of an API they have no excuse, but if they didn’t use the API yesterday, last month or ever, should that really sway your hiring decision? Is this candidate really better or worse than the one before?

A Different Way?

Joel Spolsky keeps his criteria for hiring staff quite simple; smart, and gets things done. If we approach hiring with such simple criteria; development is about solving problems and a good developer needs to excel at this regardless of their chosen language. They need a natural aptitude to understand a problem, break it down and arrive at a a solution. Presenting a candidate with technical questions or example code rarely tests those natural problem solving abilities in any great deal.

Rubik’s Research

A recent batch of company branded merchandise contained a single rubik’s cube. Over the course of a couple of months, the rubik’s cube was passed around the office, each member of the team having differing degrees of success. One team member was a rubik’s cube wizard, spinning and flicking the squares around to complete the puzzle in what seemed like seconds. This team member also happens to be exceptional at their job and has amazing problem solving skills. This team member is not a developer, but I have no doubt that if they decided to turn their hand to it, they would be an exceptionally productive one.

Some of the other team members just couldn’t break the problem down and struggled to find the patterns that advanced the puzzle. Even after training from the rubik’s cube wizard and written instructions on how to solve the puzzle, some team members still couldn’t progress from the jumbled mess. Some of these individuals could be classified as average (not exceptional, but not bad) developers and this puzzle really seemed to highlight the distinction.

The rubik’s cube is only one example of a problem solving challenge (some would argue one of the hardest), but even when supplied with the answers it still provides a good challenge. Fan’s of the classic game show Krypton Factor might already have an idea of the kind of challenges a candidate could undertake; from the impossible to the absurd. The idea here is simply that by augmenting a normal interview with a puzzle element, it may add some insight into the candidates puzzle solving approach.

Conclusion

The difference between average, good and excellent developers can often be traced back to their aptitude to solve basic problems. If team members are given the solution to problems but still can’t progress further, does this give us an insight into their general analytical approach? Problem solving skills can be taught to some degree, but does the rest just come naturally, is there only so much you can teach? Typical interviews often only touch on this ability and don’t look at it from a pure approach.

Puzzles like the rubik’s cube are a great way to test an individuals problem solving abilities, potentially putting them on a level playing field. These kind of puzzles force individuals to look for patterns, understand the process and apply it; after all isn’t that what development is all about? Next time you have a candidate in for an interview, should you include the the rubik’s approach?

Note: I have tried to find more information on this subject but as yet I’ve found very little real research. I’d be interested to hear about the links between problem solving and programming ability.