Tag Archives: teaching

Summit on Women and IT in Portland

Recently, I participated in the fascinating National Center for Women & Information Technology (NCWIT) annual Summit on Women and IT, in Portland, Oregon. A year ago, I wrote a blog entry called Women in IT: Think Globally, Act Locally about a similar NCWIT event. I learn so much and meet such interesting people through NCWIT!

This year, I lead a table discussion on “Visibility for Women as Great Technical Thinkers” and I was also part of a panel called “Evaluating What We Do: Challenges and Solutions”. For the panel, I presented data, analysis, and methods from my 2009 Sun Mentoring: 1996-2009 Technical Report. Our panel moderator was Dr. Wendy DuBow (NCWIT Research Scientist). The other panelists were Tricia Berry (Director of both the Women in Engineering Program (WEP) and the Texas Girls Collaborative Project (TxGCP) at The University of Texas at Austin), and Dr. Debra Richardson (Dean of Donald Bren School of Information and Computer Science, University of California at Irvine).

Because of another eruption of Iceland’s volcano, a speaker from Scotland could not attend. The last-minute replacement speaker was Brian Nosek Associate Professor of Psychology, University of Virginia and Project Implicit (a collaboration of the University of Virginia, Harvard University, and the University of Washington). Dr. Nosek gave an impressive and surprising presentation on “Mind Bugs – the Ordinary Origins of Bias”. Other presentations which were memorable included a panel on Women in Open Source and a presentation on the University of Michigan’s “Approach to Increasing Faculty Diversity”.

I was pleased to be able to see more of Portland. (Yes, it rained every day.) I enjoyed riding their excellent public transit system and saw Portlandia at last. I first heard about this huge copper statue during a lecture by Tom Wolfe in 1980. I also saw the umbrella man (“Allow Me” sculpture), Powell’s City of Books, and a variety of moose heads (one of which had its own flying squirrel companion).

On a street near Powell’s,  there was a delightfully peculiar set of objects: a concrete chair painted bright pink next to a tiny plastic horse carefully tied with a steel cable to an iron ring set into the street curb.  The unexplained arrangement somehow seemed a very-Portland.

IMG_4473 IMG_4499 IMG_4639
IMG_4490 IMG_4497 IMG_4632
IMG_4460 IMG_4496 IMG_4574 IMG_4581

IMG_4485

Images Copyright 2010 Katy Dickinson

Leave a comment

Filed under Mentoring & Other Business, News & Reviews

Book and Pizza Party

Last week, we had a wonderful visit at Santa Maria Urban Ministry’s Studio after-school program for inner city San Jose kids. Vicki Gochnauer’s Redwood Middle School class presented the Studio program with twenty or so of their favorite books (along with written book reviews now posted on the wall under the book shelf), then we had a pizza party. The big and little kids enjoyed hanging out and learning from each other. They did homework and played with computers and ran around together in the play yard. The Redwood Middle School class were also generous enough to raise $155 for a SMUM donation through bake sales. Much appreciated!

Some of Studio’s new books are:

The Calder Game, Blue Balliett
Stanley Flat Again, Jeff Brown
Because of Winn-Dixie, Kate DiCamillo
George’s Marvelous Medicine, Roald Dahl
Shiloh, Phyllis Reynolds Naylor
The BFG, Roald Dahl
Redwall – Mossflower Brain Jacques
Lily B on the Brink of Cool, Elizabeth Cody Kimmel
Ella Enchanted, Gail Carson Levine
Esperanza Rising, Pam Munoz
Zia, Scott O’Dell
Dinosaurs Before Dark – Magic Treehouse, Mary Pope Osborne
The Case of the Missing Hamster – Jigsaw Jones Mystery, James Preller
Holes, Louis Sachar
Bone, Jeff Smith
The Boxcar Children – Special #12, Gertrude Chandler Warner
Sabrina the Teenage Witch – Salem on Trial, Bobbi J.G. Weiss

Photos from our party:

IMG_0163 IMG_0169 IMG_0170
IMG_0180 IMG_0182 IMG_0190
IMG_0195 IMG_0204  IMG_0222

Images Copyright by Katy Dickinson and John Plocher 2010

Leave a comment

Filed under Church, News & Reviews

Transitions for Young Adults with Neurocognitive Deficits

This coming Saturday, I will give my second talk at an Orion Academy‘s “Annual Seminar on Post-Secondary Transition Planning for Young Adults with Aspergers, NLD and other Neurocognitive Deficits”. The 4th Orion annual seminar will be held:

March 20, 2010
8:30 AM – 4 PM
Lafayette Park Hotel
Lafayette, CA

Here my presentation for this year: What Happens After College? – Kids with Neurocognitive Disability Working in Engineering and Computing”.

My talk of the same title from last year is linked to my 7 April 2009 blog entry. As the Mom of a 17-year-old son with social-cognitive disabilities, this seminar is of particular interest. I enjoyed speaking to Orion parents but I also learn a great deal from the other parents and presenters.  My son Paul just registered for the Spring Semester at Foothill College so that he can take his first college class (“Introduction to College and Accomodations”) during his last semester as a High School Senior. I am looking forward to hearing advice on the High School – College transition at Saturday’s seminar.

It was fun to refine and extend my slides from last year. The Benefits/Disadvantages of Neurocognitive Disability table gives me a new perspective every time I update it. (This was first published in my Living in a Cat World blog entry dated 15 May 2008.) I added a new picture of a geek at work (with his permission, of course), plus new geek-wear images from Think Geek and the XKCD Store. I was very pleased to find an excellent new quote by the famously-autistic and famously-successful Temple Grandin:

“Jane Goodall went in the back door to become an ethologist. That’s something I’ve thought about a lot, because people with autism usually have to go in the back door. We have trouble following the normal paths. We don’t do very well in interviews, which is a big problem for us, and a lot of autistic people also have extremely ‘uneven’ academic skills… I couldn’t be doing what I’m doing if there weren’t any back doors.”

(From Animals Make Us Human, 2009, by Temple Grandin)

29 Dec 2016: Links Updated

1 Comment

Filed under Home & Family, News & Reviews

Teaching Kids to Love Computers

Every few years, we volunteer teachers at Santa Maria Urban Ministry (San Jose, California) go through a re-application and background check process, as well as training in “Protecting God’s Children”. One of the questions on the SMUM application form asks why I want to teach the children.  I have been thinking about this.

I enjoy teaching. I enjoy children. I love learning and I want the inner city Latino kids in our after-school Studio program also to love learning and love computers. As frustrating as computers can be, I think a love and thorough knowledge of technology will give our wonderful kids more power over their future.

Last Thursday afternoon after we finished homework and snacks, the boys were playing video games in the SMUM computer lab but the girls wanted to draw on the lab whiteboards. Ashley is a very quiet 7 year old who loves penguins, so I showed her how to find penguin pictures using Google’s Image search. We discovered a web page with instructions on an easy way to draw a penguin and then everyone wanted to give it a try…

DSCN9285 DSCN9284

DSCN9289

Images Copyright 2010 by Katy Dickinson

1 Comment

Filed under Church

Planning Poker and SEED (Estimating and Rating Tools)

I went to a breakfast meeting of the PM PM SIG (Project Management Special Interest Group) today to hear Kevin Thompson of cPrime talk about “Wideband Delphi (Agile) Estimation for Project Managers”. It turned out to be a fun talk about an easy-to-use estimating tool called Planning Poker by Mountain Goat Software. I was surprised by the similarities between the Planning Poker estimation method and the participant selection method we have used for many years for Sun’s SEED worldwide Engineering mentoring program.

Planning Poker

Planning Poker is based on the Delphi estimation method pioneered by the Rand Corporation in the 1940s, then refined by Barry Boehm in the 1970s.

I volunteered to participate in the demonstration during this morning’s meeting. I pretended to be an Expert on Chickens. I was quizzed by a team of three estimators who had to decide how many chickens would be needed to feed dinner to twenty people. Here is how we used the Planning Poker estimation cards:

  1. Discuss the work to be done, clarify details, each estimator gets a set of cards
  2. A Facilitator asks each estimator to pick one numbered card from their set (each card has one number: 0, 1/2, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13…).
  3. Once each estimator has picked his card, the Facilitator asks that all the cards be shown
  4. If estimates differ (for example: two people estimated 5 chickens and the other estimated 13 chickens), assumptions which drove selection of the low and high numbers are discussed
  5. More operational definitions and details are requested from the Expert as needed (for example: I said that one third of the twenty diners were vegetarian but the chickens were very small)
  6. The estimation cycle repeats until there is agreement (our group agreed that 13 chickens would feed 20 people)

This method reduces bias of team members just agreeing with each other’s estimates for social or hierarchical reasons. Since everyone picked his number card in private then turned over the cards simultaneously, each had to make a first estimate based on his own understanding.

SEED Selection

Here is how SEED selection for Recent Hire mentoring terms works:

  1. Each SEED application is read independently by at least two executive Selection Committee members. Each member ends up reading about the same number of applications.
  2. Each Applicant is ranked H-High, M-Medium or L-Low, with roughly 1/3 of the names in each category. For example, if there were 84 applications and 7 on the committee, if the goal is 40 Participants, each Selection Committee member would read 24 applications and have more-or-less eight High, eight Medium, and eight Low rankings to distribute.
  3. The committee gets a week to make their evaluations. Then, they meet by phone for a one hour meeting. During the first half of that meeting, a Facilitator says the name of each applicant and the two Selection Committee members who have rated that person give their rating: H, M, or L. After all applicants have been given two ratings,
    discussions follow.
  4. Discussions are often around differences of interpretation of the application materials and relative value to Sun Engineering of the applicant. Energetic discussions happen when the same Applicant is rated High by one and Low by another.
  5. Another common discussion is about how many Medium/Mediums to include to achieve an appropriate and balanced diversity among the Participants. Diversity of demographics, geography, and professional area are all considered.
  6. All SEED applicants rated H,H and M,H and L,H are accepted and also some rated M,M. SEED does not accept applicants rated L,L (low by both reviewers) or M,L.

Because the Selection Committee are all executives who may be rating staff reporting to other committee members, keeping the ratings private until the actual phone meeting helps reduce bias of members just agreeing with each other’s ratings for social or hierarchical reasons. As with Planning Poker, discussions start with outlying values rather than discussing all the details and assumptions for each rating.

Using Planning Poker or the SEED selection method means that potentially complex decisions can be made very quickly and with relative ease. This makes it easier to recruit team members, especially in the case of SEED where the members are very busy executives.

Read more about the SEED mentoring program in Sun Mentoring: 1996-2009 by Katy Dickinson, Tanya Jankot, and Helen Gracon (Sun Labs Technical Report TR-2009-185, August 2009).

Planning Poker set
DSCN8843
. PM PM SIG
DSCN8845

Images Copyright 2010 Katy Dickinson
Links updated 25 March 2014

1 Comment

Filed under Mentoring & Other Business, News & Reviews

“On Leadership” – Ivan Sutherland’s SEED talk, now on YouTube

I am very proud to announce that the SEED worldwide Engineering mentoring program just published “On Leadership” – its first public video. Thanks to SEED Matthias Mueller-Prove (in Germany) who first suggested making Ivan Sutherland’s important 2006 SEED talk public.

A Sun Labs team including Mary Holzer, Sheri Kaneshiro, and Alan Lancendorfer took SEED’s rough internal video and created a polished product which is now available for free viewing as the featured video on the Sun Labs home page. Tanya Jankot and Sheri Kaneshiro created the original 2006 video for SEED. John Plocher and I followed my daughter Jessica’s instructions on How to Post Videos Longer Than 10 Minutes to YouTube.

If you want to see the video of Ivan Sutherland’s 2006 SEED talk “On Leadership” on YouTube, link to the play list to see all 8 segments in sequence. This video is Copyright 2006-2010, Sun Microsystems (uploaded with permission).

In his inspirational talk to SEED’s annual meeting, Ivan Sutherland (Sun Vice President and Fellow, Internet pioneer, and Turing award winner) speaks from a lifetime of experience working with many of the leaders and key innovators in the field of computing. Ivan answered the following questions from the SEED audience:

  • “Where does change belong: managing change or leading change?”
  • “What is the future of Computer Science (in the next five years)?”
  • “Is leadership a property of nature or nurture?”
  • “What makes people want to become leaders?”
  • “How does ambition fit into leadership?”
  • “Can one person encompass both leadership and management?”
  • “Is leadership the same in different situations?”
  • “What is the difference between taking the lead and being a leader?”
  • “Does being a leader once qualify you for all time in the future?”

Since I set up and hosted the meeting at which Ivan spoke, you can hear a tiny bit of my voice just at the end of “On Leadership”.

I hope you enjoy watching it!

Links updated 25 March 2014

1 Comment

Filed under Mentoring & Other Business, News & Reviews

Process Success Measures

In 2002, I gave a lunchtime presentation on process design to Sun’s Six Sigma Black Belt community. In that talk I proposed two measures for process success. While any individual process will have its own particular success measures, two simple metrics for overall success for any process are:

  1. The process is used long-term by a variety of people.
  2. It is updated and improved by people other than the ones who created it.

I was reminded of those key measures this week when I used two very different but successful systems for which I have had the honor to be one of the architects:

  1. Sun Labs’ Archivist, an archival and clearance system for intellectual property
  2. El Camino Real Department of Missions (DOM), a management system for small congregations, many of them working and worshiping across cultural lines

Both the Archivist and DOM systems have now been in use for many years and are successfully managed by people who were not involved in their original development. I am proud of these projects and their phase transition from development to long-term sustained use. I am also pleased to see how well their pattern matches the two success metrics I proposed in 2002. Below is more about Archivist and DOM.


Sun Labs’ Archivist

In 2000, James Gosling, Jos Marlowe, and I started a two-year project to create a new archiving and clearance system for Sun Laboratories. You can read some of the history of this system in “Sun Labs: The Second Fifty Technical Reports A Commemorative Issue” by Jeanie Treichel, Katie Chiu, Christopher Wu and Jeanne Wang (Sun Labs Report TR-2009-101, published in March 2009).

We based the process for Archivist on a system created while I was the Process Architect for the Sun Standards group. That group needed a fast way to submit contributions to an SSO (Standards Setting Organization) such as the IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force), while protecting Sun’s intellectual property. Part of the SSO submission system was the Technical Information Clearance Process (TICP) which was a core piece of what became Archivist. The SSO submission process project team included Carl Cargill, Catherine Mccarthy, Lisa Goldman and Philip Rosenzweig. Sadly, Phil Rosenzweig died on one of the planes in New York City on 11 September 2001, before the SSO submission project was complete.

Here is the original Executive Overview for Archivist from 2000:

    Sun Labs is faced with a dilemma: we wish to derive the benefits of quality control and process while at the same time shortening our time-to-release. In particular, we wish to protect our intellectual property and increase our patent portfolio while simultaneously speeding up the time it takes to review technical information prior to publication. This process architecture is our attempt to resolve the dilemma. The Archivist is both an archival mechanism and a clearance process.

Think of The Archivist clearance process as a state dinner: the menu is fixed and protocol is closely observed. Think of The Archivist Fasttrack as a scramble-bar cafeteria where one can select individual dishes. The advantage of a state dinner is that it is safe, repeatable, and the participants know exactly what to expect (with regard to structure). The advantage of a cafeteria is that it is flexible and very fast. We expect that as the Fasttrack cafeteria grows in its selection and quality of service, the volume of users will shift from The Archivist clearance to Fasttrack clearance: thus, cycle time will be greatly reduced.

Here is the 2000 description for use of Archivist for clearance and archiving:

Clearance is distinct from archival. Archived material may or may not go through clearance.

Examples of archived material are:

  • An email or a note describing an idea
  • Audio and video tapes
  • Objects (such as boards)
  • Letters
  • Notebooks

Examples of documents that have been cleared are:

  • White papers (either on paper or the web)
  • SML Tech reports (paper or web)
  • Third-party publications (e.g. conferences, encyclopedias)
  • External presentations

Rule of thumb: if you think your document will be leaked or by any means published outside, use the process.

Sun Labs started in 1991, so Archivist was not the first archiving system for Sun Labs but it has been by many times the longest lived. In creating Archivist, we identified two key customers: Ivan Sutherland (Sun Fellow and Vice President), and Jeanie Treichel (Sun Labs founding Program Manager and Technical Reports Editor). Ivan Sutherland is famous in Sun Labs for his saying “It’s not an idea until you write it down.” There were many other reviewers and contributors but we knew that if Ivan and Jeanie were happy with Archivist, it would be good enough for everyone else.

Archivist has gone through several major revisions since it was created in 2000. It has been used by hundreds of Sun Labs staff in the US, UK, and France to enter over ten thousand items. Archivist continues in active use today under the management of Sun Labs’ technical staff.

As of now, I have 113 of my own documents entered into Archivist. Recently, Helen Gracon and I entered into Archivist most of the key documents from the Mentoring@Sun program. More about Mentoring@Sun is available in the recent Sun Labs Technical Report “Sun Mentoring: 1996-2009” (by Katy Dickinson, Tanya Jankot, and Helen Gracon).


El Camino Real Department of Missions

From 2003-2007, I was the volunteer Convener for DIEM (the Department of Intercultural Evangelism and Mission), providing oversight, finance, and management support to thirteen mission congregations (Latino, Anglo, and Asian) of the El Camino Real Episcopal Diocese. I served as Convener under two Bishops: the (late) Right Reverend Richard Shimpfky, and the Rt. Rev. Sylvestre D. Romero.

2003-2007 was a difficult time of transition for our diocese but nonetheless the elected and appointed DIEM members developed a solid process for Mission Liaisons, as well as the “Mission and Vision” structure for the missions as a group. The “Mission Congregation Liaison Job Description” was only one page long but it represents an amiable solution to years of discussion on how best to provide mission oversight.

In 2008, I was elected to DOM (the successor to DIEM) for a three year term. At last night’s monthly DOM meeting, I was pleased to get slightly updated versions of the process documents DIEM created in 2005 while I was Convener. DOM and its nine remaining missions is now managed by our new Bishop, the Rt. Rev. Mary Gray-Reeves, with the Rev. Canon Jesus Reyes acting as Convener.

28 March 2014 and 6 January 2018- links and formatting of this blog post were updated

1 Comment

Filed under Church, Mentoring & Other Business, News & Reviews