A Storja qasira tal SharePoint (Mill-perspettiva ta Newcomer relattiva tal)

Innota: This article was originally posted to www.endusersharepoint.com. I forgot to post it to my own blog 🙂

SharePoint evolviet ħafna sa mill-bidu tagħha bħala tip ta 'teknoloġija inkubazzjoni Microsoft –huwa evolviet kważi bħal movie orrur, where the mad scientist’s creation takes on a life of its own, breaking free of its creator’s expectations and rules. The technical evolution is obvious – the WSS 3.0 object model is richer and more complex than WSS 2.0, which was itself an improvement over earlier versions. The next version will no doubt show tremendous improvement over 3.0. From an End User’s perspective, madankollu, SharePoint’s evolution is even more significant.

In the early days, SharePoint didn’t offer much to End Users. They would have their usual functionality requirements, work with IT to define them well and implement a solution. IT would use SharePoint to solve the problem. The product wasn’t very accessible to End Users. I’ve thought threw a few analogies, but I decided to stick Venn Diagrams to show what I mean. When Microsoft first released SharePoint to the world as a commercial offering, it followed a relatively traditional pattern of End User <-> IT relationship. A lot of End Users, communicating and working with a very small number of It people to deliver solutions that solve business problems:

The overall problem domain for which SharePoint is a suitable delivery platform is small (especially compared to today’s SharePoint. End Users and IT worked in a more classic arrangement with IT: define requirements to IT, wait for IT do their work behind the curtain and take delivery of the final product.

As SharePoint evolved to the 2.0 world (WSS 2.0 and SharePoint Portal Server), several things happened. Ewwel, the “problem domain” increased in size. By problem domain, I mean the kinds of business problems for which SharePoint could be a viable solution. Per eżempju, you wouldn’t think too hard about implementing a serious search solution in a SharePoint environment until SPS (and even then, it wasn’t as good as it needed to be). Fl-istess ħin, End Users have an unprecedented ability to not only define, but also implement their own solutions with little or no IT support.

The 3.0 platform (WSS and MOSS) maintained and increased that momentum. The problem domain is enormous as compared to the 2.0 platform. Virtually every department in a company, ranging from manufacturing health and safety departments to marketing, from sales to quality control – they can find a good use for SharePoint (and it’s not a case of mashing a round peg into a square hole). Fl-istess ħin, the platform empowers even more End Users to implement their own business solutions. I try to capture that with this diagram:

This has proven to be both a potent and frustrating mixture. The 3.0 platform turns previously stable roles on their heads. Suddenly, End Users are effectively judge, jury and executioner analista negozju, application architect and developer for their own business solutions. This gets to the heart of the problem I’m writing about. But before I dive into that, let’s consider the elephant in the room.

Peering into the Crystal Ball

How will SharePoint 2010 affect this pattern? Will it be incremental or revolutionary? Will more, fewer or about the same number of End users find themselves empowered to build solutions in SharePoint 2010? Will SharePoint 2010’s problem domain expand even further or will it just refine and streamline what it already offers in WSS 3.0 / MOSS?

There’s enough information “out there” to safely say that the general answer is:

• The problem domain is going to dramatically expand.
• End Users will find themselves even more empowered than before.

The Venn Diagram would be larger than this page and cause some IT Pros and CxO’s to reach for their Pepto.

I believe it’s going to be a tremendous opportunity for companies to do some truly transformational things.

No Bulls in My China Shop!

This sounds great, but from my point of view as a SharePoint consultant and putting myself into the shoes of an IT manager, I see this vision. I own a China shop with beautiful plates, crystal, eċċ (my SharePoint environment). I’ve rented a space, I’ve purchased my inventory and laid it all out the way I like it. I’m not quite ready to open, but in anticipation, I look at the door to see if my customers are lining up and I notice an actual bull out there. I look more closely and I actually see tnejn bulls and even a wolf. Then I notice that there are some sheep. Sheep are hekk bad, but are they maybe disguised wolves? I don’t want bulls in my china shop!

It gets worse! When I rented the space, I couldn’t believe how nice it was. Wide and open, terrific amenities, very reasonable price. Madankollu, now I’m realizing that the wide open spaces and the huge door is just perfectly sized for a bull to come wandering in and lay waste to my china.

I’m pushing this analogy too far, tal-kors. End Users are not bulls (most of them, xorta waħda) and IT departments don’t (or surely should not) view their user community with that kind of suspicion. Madankollu, there is this sort of perfect collision taking place already in the the 3.0 platform that I expect will only get worse in SP 2010. SharePoint already empowers and encourages End Users to define and implement their own solutions.

That’s great and all, but the fact is that it’s still a very technical product and still calls for the kind of vigorous business requirements analysis, design and general planning and management that technical projects require to be successful. These are not the kind of skills that a lot of End Users have in their bag of tricks, especially when the focus is on a technical product like SharePoint.

I’ve given this a lot of thought over the last year or so and I don’t see any easy answer. It really boils down to education and training. I think that SP 2010 is going to change the game a bit and it’s going to play out differently and in slow motion as companies roll out their SP 2010 solutions over 2010 and beyond. In order to succeed, End Users will need to transform themselves and get a little IT religion. They’ll need to learn a little bit about proper requirements
analysis. They will need some design documentation that clearly identifies business process workflow, per eżempju. They need to understand fundamental concepts like CRUD (create, update and delete), dev/test/qa/prod environments and how to use that infrastructure to properly deploy solutions that live a nice long time and bend (not break) in response to changes in an organization.

In the coming weeks, I plan to try and provide some of my own new ideas, as well as link to the great work done by many other authors (fuq www.endusersharepoint.com u bnadi oħra) so that interested End Users can learn that old time IT religion. Keep tuned.

</aħħar>

Abbona għall-blog tiegħi.

Follow lili Twitter fi http://www.twitter.com/pagalvin

[Innota: Dan l-artikolu cross-stazzjonati biex End User SharePoint hawn: http://www.endusersharepoint.com/2009/09/09/sharepoint-a-case-study-in-ask-the-expert/]

Kultant, meta inti qed jaħdmu bħala konsulent (bħala professjoni, jew fi rwol konsultattiv fil-kumpanija tiegħek), you find yourself living in an Onion story. The Onion has a series of articles called “Ask an [espert] dwar [xi problema]". This follows the famous “Dear Abby” format where a concerned person is asking for personal advice. The onion’s “expert”, madankollu, is so focused on his/her area of expertise and current problems that the expert ignores the question entirely and rambles on about his area of expertise. As consultants, we need to keep that in mind all the time and avoid falling into that trap. It’s classically described like this – “when you use a hammer all day long to solve your problems, everything starts to look like a nail.” We professional consultants are always on guard against that kind of thing, imma aħna jiġu f'kuntatt ma 'nies li huma professjonisti serji fir-rwol tagħhom stess, but are not consultants. They don’t have the same need or training to do otherwise.

Last week, I kiteb dwar wieħed mill-klijenti tal-kumpanija tiegħi u proġett li għaddej we have to enable high quality collaboration between various eye doctors in the US and Canada performing clinical research on rare disease. In addition to leveraging core SharePoint features to enable that collaboration, we’re also working an expense submission and approval process. It’s complicated because we have so many actors:

• Ftit ta 'individwi fi prattika tat-tobba differenti "li jistgħu jidħlu spejjeż fuq il-linja.
  • Hemm aktar 40 prattika tat-tobba.
  • Fuq xi prattiċi, it-tabib tuża s-sistema direttament.
  • Lejn prattiki ħafna, persunal tat-tabib tuża s-sistema direttament.
• A amministratur finanzjarja (li taħdem għal klijent dirett tiegħi) li jirrevedi l-ispejjeż għall-preċiżjoni u l-relevanza, tapprova jew jċaħħadhom fil-livell organizzazzjonali.
• A 3rd party accounts payable group. These people pay all of the bills for out client, not just bills coming out of the rare disease study.

The Accounts Payable group has been a challenge. Working with them yesterday reminded me of the Onion series. In my role as business consultant, I spjegat il-ħtieġa li l-kumpanija pagabbli kontijiet:

• Siti studji kliniċi (prattika tat-tobba) spejjeż relatati mad-istudju jġarrbu.
• They log onto the “web site” and enter their expenses using an online form. F'dan il-każ, the “web site” is hosted with SharePoint and the expenses are entered into an InfoPath form. Expense receipts are scanned, uploaded u mwaħħla direttament mal-formola.
• An proċess workflow awtomatizzati ifittex l-approvazzjoni mill-amministratur finanzjarja xierqa.
• You, dear 3rd party AP company – please review and approve or deny this expense. I’ll send it to you any way that you want (fil-raġuni).Fuq dan il-punt fid-diskussjoni, I don’t really care how it needs to be bundled. I want to work with the AP group to understand what they need and want.

Meta I spjegat il-ħtieġa, il-parti 3 ħa adsa fond fil intern mumbo Jumbo Lingo tagħhom dwar il-proċessi ta 'approvazzjoni spejjeż, Kodiċijiet Oracle, firem presidenzjali viċi, 90 jum dawran arounds, eċċ. And panic. I shouldn’t forget about the panic. One of the bed rock requirements of the consulting profession is to learn how to communicate with people like that who are themselves not trained or necessarily feel a need to do the same. Among other things, it’s one of the best parts of being a consultant. You get to enter a world populated with business people with completely different perspectives. I imagine it’s a little bit like entering the mind of a serial killer, ħlief li inti ma ruined għall-ħajja wara l-esperjenza (though entering the mind of an AP manager isn’t a walk in the park 🙂 [ara n-nota importanti hawn taħt ***] ).

One of the great things about our technical world as SharePoint people is that we have ready-made answers to many of the very valid concerns that people such as my AP contact have. Is it secure? How do I know that the expense was properly vetted? Can I, bħala dak li jħallas finali, tara d-dettalji kollha ta 'l-ispiża? How do I do that? What if I look at those details and don’t approve of them? Can I reject them? What happens if the organization changes and the original approver is no longer around? Can we easily change the process to reflect changes in the system? Nista tirrevedi din l-ispiża sena wara jekk u meta I nikseb verifikati u l-ħtieġa li jiddefendu l-ħlas?

Billi n-nies SharePoint, we can see how to answer those questions. In my client’s case, aħna risposta aktar jew inqas bħal dan:

• Forma InfoPath biex jippermettu siti biex jirreġistra l-ispejjeż tagħhom u jippreżentawhom għall-approvazzjoni.
• Siti jistgħu jirritornaw għall-sit biex tara l-istatus tar-rapport spejjeż tagħhom fi kwalunkwe ħin.
• Hekk kif iseħħu l-avvenimenti sinifikanti (e.g. l-ispiża huwa approvat u sottomessa għall-ħlas), is-sistema b'mod proattiv tavżahom mill email.
• Is-sistema tinnotifika lill-amministratur finanzjarju ladarba ir-rapport ġie sottomess għall-approvazzjoni.
• Amministratur finanzjarja japprova jew jiċħad it-talba.
• Fuq approvazzjoni, l-ispiża hija marbuta biex jiffurmaw email u mibgħuta lill-organizzazzjoni 3 pagatur parti.
• Min iħallas parti 3 jkollha l-informazzjoni li jeħtieġu biex tirrevedi l-ispejjeż u jistgħu jaċċedu għall-ambjent SharePoint biex ħaffer fil-dettalji (primarjament verifika istorja li jivverifika l-"verità" ta 'l-ispejjeż).
• 3rd party payer can approve or reject the payment using their own internal process. They record that outcome back in the SharePoint site (li jitfa 'n-notifika email lil nies xierqa).
• Fil-futur, ikun sbieħ li maqtugħa dan il-proċess email stilly u minflok għalf l-informazzjoni spiża direttament fis-sistema tagħhom.

Bħala konklużjoni, hemm stil ta 'ħajja hawnhekk li I jiddeskrivi mill-punt tal-konsulent professjonali ta' opinjoni, but which applies almost equally to full time employees in a BA and/or power user role. Work patiently with the experts in your company and extract the core business requirements as best you can. With a deep understanding of SharePoint features and functions to draw upon, aktar spiss milli le, inti ser tkun kapaċi twieġeb tħassib u joffru modi biex itejbu kuljum ħidma ta 'kulħadd lieva karatteristiċi ewlenin SharePoint.

***Nota importanti: I really don’t mean to compare AP people to serial killers. Madankollu, I could probably name some AP pro’s who have probably wished they could get a restraining order against me stalking them and asking over and over again. “Where’s my check?” “Where’s my check?” “Where’s my check?"

</aħħar>

Abbona għall-blog tiegħi.

Follow lili Twitter fi http://www.twitter.com/pagalvin

[Innota: dan blog post hija taqsam stazzjonati fis-sit Mark Miller hawn: http://www.endusersharepoint.com/?p = 1897]

Wieħed mill tal-kumpanija tiegħi klijenti aktar mhux tas-soltu hija New York City tabib li hija mexxejja fil-qasam partikolari tiegħu tal-mediċina (kura għajnejn). Like many doctors, he has a strong interest in research. He wanted to do some research on a rare eye disorder that affects a relatively small number of people in the U.S. and Canada. I don’t know the number, but it’s really too small for a large pharmaceutical company to invest its own private funds with an eye toward eventual commercial success. I’m sure large pharma’s do some amount of research into rare diseases, imma nemmen li l-U.S. government is probably the largest source of funding. Bħal kull ħaġa, resources are scarce. Many doctors across the country want to perform research and trials. Bħala riżultat, there’s more than a little competition for that government funding. This is where my company and SharePoint enter the picture.

The fundamental idea is that a master organization will recruit other doctors across the country and enlist those doctors’ practices in a particular research study. These individual practices must sign up with the master organization and then, sussegwentement, sign up for a particular study. The relationships look like this:

• Organizzazzjoni waħda kaptan.
• Prattiki differenti tal-bosta tabib jiffirmaw ma 'l-organizzazzjoni kaptan.
• The master organization obtains funding for individual studies. At the outset, hemm biss l-istudju wieħed fuq marda speċifika għajn rari għalkemm aħna qed diġà FOTs għal studju ieħor.
• Individual doctors’ practices sign up for specific studies. A specific practice could sign up for one or multiple studies.

L-organizzazzjoni kaptan innifsu huwa maqsuma fi gruppi:

• Kumitat eżekuttiv
• Kumitat ta 'tmexxija
• Kumitati ta 'studju individwali
• Amministrazzjoni
• oħrajn

Fl-aħħarnett, meta prattika ta 'tabib speċifiku jiffirma biex jipparteċipaw fi studju, jeħtieġ li tipprovdi lill-professjonisti biex iwettqu varjetà ta 'rwoli:

• Investigaturi (inkluż investigatur primarja, normalment tabib, flimkien ma 'wieħed jew aktar investigaturi addizzjonali)
• Koordinaturi
• Technicians
• Għotjiet amministraturi
• oħrajn

The above roles have very specific and highly proscribed roles that vary by study. I won’t get into more detail here, imma jekk int interessat, leave kumment jew email me.

U issa I tista 'twieġeb il-mistoqsija, SharePoint - X'hemm tajjeb għall-? The answer – it’s really good for this scenario.

Dan intro huwa diġà itwal milli stennejt, so I ser tqassar l-irwol vitali li SharePoint jilgħab fil-soluzzjoni u adsa fis-dettalji fil-artikolu ġejjieni (jekk inti ma tistax tistenna, email me jew leave kumment u jien ser ikunu kuntenti li jiddiskutu u forsi anki jipprova jagħmel demo). We are leveraging a wide array of SharePoint features to support this concept:

• Siti għall-kumitati, rwoli individwali (siti koordinatur, siti investigatur, eċċ).
• Sigurtà biex tiżgura li l-prattiki differenti ma tara data prattiċi oħra ".
• InfoPath forms services for online form entry. This is a particularly big win. Normalment, dawn il-formoli diffiċli huma stampati, impustata l-prattiki, filled out and mailed back. The advantages to the online forms are obvious. They do introduce some complexities (liċenzjar u umani) iżda li storja oħra.
• Mill-web partijiet kaxxa, bħal avviżi (meta ma Kumitat [x] jilħqu?) u laqgħa ispazji tax-xogħol.
• Formoli Awtentikazzjoni ibbażata flimkien ma 'għodda CodePlex li jipprovdu self-reġistrazzjoni u password tinsa karatteristiċi.
• Listi customized u l-fehmiet lista għall-viżibilità fl-attivitajiet ta 'studju li sempliċement mhumiex possibbli bil-karta pur u approċċi lapes.

Bl-eċċezzjoni tal-modulu awtentikazzjoni bbażati forom u numru żgħir ta 'forom InfoPath, dan il-proġett qed tuża kważi kollha barra tal-funzjonalità SharePoint kaxxa.

Qabel I nagħlaq dan l-istudju min-każ, Irrid li jiġi rrilevat xi ħaġa importanti ħafna - l-ebda fuq involut ma 'dan il-proġett (apparti minn kumpanija tiegħi tal-kors) has any idea that a thing called “SharePoint” is playing such a fundamental technical role. Nearly all of my end users view this as “the web site.” Our client values us because we’re solving their business problem. SharePoint is a great technical blob of goodness, iżda jsir id-dritt, that’s irrelevant to end users. They need a problem solved, mhux blob isbaħ ta 'teknoloġija.

</aħħar>

Abbona għall-blog tiegħi.

Follow lili Twitter fi http://www.twitter.com/pagalvin

Jew hija biss me? I’ve received three or four calls at my house since late September looking for SharePoint work. I’m used to the email solicitations, but these phone calls are a little unnerving. I haven’t had an updated resume on a job site I(like Monster pr Dice) since almost two years ago exactly. And back then, my resume was all about BizTalk and MS CRM. That’s the only place my phone number appears on line anywhere, so far as I know.

</aħħar>

Abbona għall-blog tiegħi.

Follow lili Twitter fi http://www.twitter.com/pagalvin

L-għeluq ħasbu fuq dan b'mod ieħor artikolu matt titkellem ukoll għal problemi aħna sikwit jiffaċċjaw fil-komunità teknika:

"Such dreary developments, antiċipat b'ċertezza, għandhom jitħallsu philosophically."

This puts me in mind of one of the presentations I gave at the SharePoint Best Practices conference last month. I was describing how to get "great" rekwiżiti kummerċjali u xi ħadd fl-udjenza staqsa, fl-effett, what to do if circumstances are such that it’s impossible to get great requirements. Per eżempju, kultura kumpanija partikolari li tpoġġi fil quddiem min jiġbru rekwiżiti / analista negozju, preventing direct communication with end users. This is a serious impediment to obtaining great business requirements. My answer was "walk away." I’m not a big humorist, so I was surprised at how funny this was to the audience. Madankollu, I’m serious about this. If you can’t get good requirements, you can be certain that a dreary outcome will result. Who wants that? I’m a consultant, dan huwa aktar realistiku (għalkemm terriblement uġigħ u drastiċi) for me to walk away. Madankollu, jekk int għeruq f'kumpanija u ma jridux, jew ma tistax, walk away, George (for once 🙂 ) juri l-mod.

</aħħar>

Abbona għall-blog tiegħi.

Follow lili Twitter fi http://www.twitter.com/pagalvin

Kemm-il darba ma dan jiġri lilek? I’m sitting at my laptop, qari blogs, jirrispondu għal stazzjonamenti forum, 2 kopji ta 'viżwali studio miftuħa u VPN'd biex server ieħor studio viżwali tagħha stess + 15 browser twieqi (ġurnata tipika) u xi ħadd jismu Samantha (marti, apparentement) jgħidlekx me, "We have be there in 30 minuti. Get dressed."

I get up Daze, wander madwar id-dar confusedly, tikseb fil-karozza u li jmiss ħaġa naf, Jien fil-parti bil-birra fl-idejn tiegħi u xi ħadd jitlob me, "So, liema do you do għal għajxien?"

Dawn il-konversazzjonijiet qatt jmorru tajjeb.

Me: "Ahh … Jien soluzzjonijiet perit għal EMC."

Persuna nameless: evaporatur blank

Me: "I work with a product called SharePoint … huwa minn Microsoft."

NP: "Aha! I widnejna ta 'dik il-kumpannija! What is SharePoint?"

Me: "Umm … dan ma kollaborazzjoni … nies jużawha biex jaqsmu informazzjoni … Huwa pjattaforma għall-bini busines sol…"

NP: Għajnejn glazing.

Me: "I’m a programmer."

NP: "Aha! I know people in my company that do programming! When I was in high school, I lagħbu madwar mal BASIC."

U ma dik il-parti tal-konversazzjoni fuq, ngħaddu għal xi ħaġa aktar faċli biex jitkellmu dwar, bħall-politika.

Kull kura li jiddeskrivu kif huma jimmaniġġjaw dan?

</aħħar>

Abbona għall-blog tiegħi.

Stajt ġiet fil-klassijiet dawn aħħar ġimgħatejn u ħaġa waħda li jolqotni huwa li hemm ħafna ta 'maħsub, nies intelliġenti jaħdmu fuq SharePoint (bħala konsulenti jew IT persunal) li ma blog, twitter, jidher konxji ta 'bordijiet messaġġ pubbliċi bħall MSDN forum jew SharePoint Università, iżommu Facebook jew LinkedIn profili, eċċ. They are pure information consumers. Not bad, biss interessanti.

</aħħar>

Abbona għall-blog tiegħi.

A mazz ta 'snin ilu, my boss asked me to train some users on a product called Results. Results is an end user reporting tool. It’s roughly analogous to SQL Server Reporting Service or Crystal. Fil-ħin, li kienet iddisinjata biex jimxu fuq tubi ħodor (e.g. Wyse 50 terminal) connected to a Unix box via telnet.

My default answer to any question that starts with "Can you … " is "Yes" and that’s where all the trouble started.

The client was a chemical company out in southern California and had just about wrapped up a major ERP implementation based on QAD’s MFG/PRO. The implementation plan now called for training power end users on the Results product.

I wasn’t a big user of this tool and had certainly never trained anyone before. Madankollu, I had conducted a number of other training classes and was quick on my feet, so I was not too worried. Dennis, the real full-time Results instructor, had given me his training material. Looking back on it now, it’s really quite absurd. I didn’t know the product well, had never been formally trained on it and had certainly never taught it. What business did I have training anyone on it?

To complicate things logistically, I was asked to go and meet someone in Chicago as part of a pre-sales engagement along the way. The plan was to fly out of New Jersey, go to Chicago, meet for an hour with prospect and then continue on to California.

Well, I got to Chicago and the sales guy on my team had made some mistake and never confirmed the meeting. Allura, I showed up and the prospect wasn’t there. Awesome. I pack up and leave and continue on to CA. Somewhere during this process, I find out that the client is learning less than 24 hours before my arrival that "Paul Galvin" is teaching the class, not Dennis. The client loves Dennis. They want to know "who is this Paul Galvin person?" "Why should we trust him?" "Why should we pay for him?" Dennis obviously didn’t subscribe to my "jagħtu aħbar ħażina kmieni" philosophy. Awesome.

I arrive at the airport and for some incredibly stupid reason, I had checked my luggage. I made it to LAX but my luggage did not. Għalija, losing luggage is a lot like going through the seven stages of grief. Eventually I make it to the hotel, with no luggage, tired, hungry and wearing my (by now, very crumpled) business suit. It takes a long time to travel from Newark — to O’Hare — to a client — back to O’Hare — and finally to LAX.

I finally find myself sitting in the hotel room, munching on a snickers bar, exhausted and trying to drum up the energy to scan through the training material again so that I won’t look like a complete ass in front of the class. This was a bit of a low point for me at the time.

I woke up the next day, did my best to smooth out my suit so that I didn’t look like Willy Loman on a bad day and headed on over to the client. As is so often the case, in person she was nice, polite and very pleasant. This stood in stark contrast to her extremely angry emails/voicemails from the previous day. She leads me about 3 miles through building after building to a sectioned off area in a giant chemical warehouse where we will conduct the class for the next three days. The 15 jew 20 students slowly assemble, most them still expecting Dennis.

I always start off my training classes by introducing myself, giving some background and writing my contact information on the white board. As I’m saying, "Good morning, my name is Paul Galvin", I write my name, email and phone number up on the white board in big letters so that everyone can see it clearly. I address the fact that I’m replacing Dennis and I assure them that I am a suitable replacement, eċċ. I have everyone briefly tell me their name and what they want to achieve out of the class so that I can tailor things to their specific requirements as I go along. The usual stuff.

We wrap that up and fire up the projector. I go to erase my contact info and … I had written it in permanent marker. I was so embarrassed. In my mind’s eye, it looked like this: There is this "Paul Galvin" person, last minute replacement for our beloved Dennis. He’s wearing a crumpled up business suit and unshaven. He has just written his name huge letters on our white board in permanent marker. What a sight!

It all ended happily, madankollu. This was a chemical company, wara kollox. A grizzled veteran employee pulled something off the shelf and, probably in violation of EPA regulations, cleared the board. I managed to stay 1/2 day ahead of the class throughout the course and they gave me a good review in the end. This cemented my "pinch hitter" reputation at my company. My luggage arrived the first day, so I was much more presentable days two and three.

As I was taking the red eye back home, I was contemplating "lessons learned". There was plenty to contemplate. Communication is key. Tell clients about changes in plan. Don’t ever check your luggage at the airport if you can possibly avoid it. Bring spare "stuff" in case you do check your luggage and it doens’t make it. I think the most important lesson I learned, madankollu, was this: always test a marker in the lower left-hand corner of a white board before writing, in huge letters, "Paul Galvin".

</aħħar>

Due to some oddball United Airlines flights I took in the mid 90’s, I somehow ended up with an offer to transform "unused miles" into about a dozen free magazine subscriptions. That is how I ended up subscribing to Scientific American magazine.

Bħala softwer / konsulenza nies, we encounter many difficult business requirements in our career. Most the time, aħna imħabba jissodisfaw dawk ir-rekwiżiti u fil-fatt, it’s probably why we think this career is the best in the world. I occasionally wonder just what in the world would I have done with myself if I had been born at any other time in history. How terrible would it be to miss out on the kinds of work I get to do now, f'dan il-ħin u l-post fl-istorja dinjija? I think: pretty terrible.

Matul is-snin, some of the requirements I’ve faced have been extremely challenging to meet. Complex SharePoint stuff, oqfsa ipproċessar web bini bbażati fuq teknoloġija mhux web-friendly, complex BizTalk orchestrations and the like. We can all (nisperaw) ħarsa kburi lura fuq karriera tagħna u jgħidu, "yeah, li kienet waħda diffiċli biex isolvu, imma fl-aħħar I pwned li sumbitch!" Aħjar għadhom, isfidi saħansitra aktar interessanti u divertenti tistenna.

Personalment naħseb li jerġa tiegħi, f'dan ir-rigward, hija pjuttost fil-fond u jien pretty kburin minnha (jekk naf mara tiegħi qatt se jifhmu 1/20th ta 'dan). But this week, I kien qari artikolu dwar il- Large Hadron Collider in my Scientific American magazine and had one of those rare humbling moments where I realized that despite my "giant" status f'ċerti ċrieki jew kif deep naħseb ukoll tiegħi ta 'esperjenza, there are real giants in completely different worlds.

The people on the LHC team have some really thorny issues to manage. Consider the Moon. I don’t really think much about the Moon (though I’ve been very suspicious about it since I learned it’s slowing the Earth’s rotation, which can’t be a good thing for us Humans in the long term). Iżda, the LHC team does have to worry. LHC’s measuring devices are so sensitive that they are affected by the Moon’s (Earth-rotation-slowing-and-eventually-killing-all-life) gravity. That’s a heck of a requirement to meet — produce correct measurements despite the Moon’s interference.

I was pondering that issue when I read this sentence: "The first level will receive and analyze data from only a subset of all the detector’s components, from which it can pick out promising events based on isolated factors such as whether an energetic muon was spotted flying out at a large angle from the beam axis." Really … ? I don’t play in that kind of sandbox and never will.

Next time I’m out with some friends, I’m going to raise a toast to the good people working on the LHC, hope they don’t successfully weigh the Higgs boson particle and curse the Moon. I suggest you do the same. It will be quite the toast 🙂

</aħħar>