I went to NFJS today, and went to a talk on "Complexity Theory and Software Development" by Tim Berglund. It was a great presentation, but one idea in particular stuck out to me. Tim described the concept of "thinking about a problem as a surface." Imagine yourself surrounded by mountains, everywhere you look - you want to reach as high as you can. But from where you are, you can only see potential peaks near by. Beyond the clouds and the mountain range obstructing your view, might be the highest peak of all.
With agile and continuous improvement come a concept of tweaking the system toward perfection. But a tweak always takes me to somewhere nearby - take a step, if it wasn't up, step back to where I was. But what if my problem is a surface, and the solution is some peak out there I can't see? Or even if it is a peak I can see... if I only ever take one small step at a time, I'll never discover that other mountain...
Maybe sometimes we need to leap. Maybe sometimes we need to break the things that are working just fine. Maybe we should do exactly what we're not "supposed to do", and see what happens.
Now imagine a still pool of water... I drop in a stone, and watch the rings of ripples growing outward in response. I can see the reaction of the system and gain insight into the interaction. But what if I cast my stone into a raging river? I can certainly see changes in waves, but which waves are in response to my stone? It seems like I'll likely guess wrong. Or come to completely wrong conclusions about how the system works.
With all to variance in movement of the system - maybe it takes a big splash to in order to improve our understanding of how it works? Step away from everything we know and make a leap for a far away peak?
Here's one experiment. We've noticed that tests we write during development provide a different benefit when you write them vs when they fail and you need to fix them later. How you interact with them and think about them totally changes. So maybe the tests you write first and the ones you keep, shouldn't be the same tests? We started deleting tests. If we didn't think a test would keep us from making a mistake later, it was gone. We worked at optimizing the tests we kept for catching mistakes. But this made me wonder about a pretty drastic step - what if you designed all code with TDD, then deleted all your tests? What if you added tests back that were only specifically optimized for the purpose of coming back to later? If you had a clean slate, and you were positive your tests worked already, what would you slip in the time capsule to communicate to your future self?