Tag Archives: teaching

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

How Speed Mentoring Works

SEED (Sun Engineering Enrichment & Development) is Sun Microsystems Engineering’s world-wide employee mentoring program, started in 2001. Speed mentoring is SEED’s newest offering: a series of short focused conversations about specific questions. This business method can serve as an introduction for mentees and mentors both to mentoring and to each other.

The first SEED Speed Mentoring session was held at Sun Microsystems during lunchtime on 9 December 2009 in Menlo Park, California. Thirteen mentors and twenty mentees signed up. 88% of the mentors and mentees reported being satisfied to very satisfied with their experience. No one reported being dissatisfied. Thanks to Helen Gracon, Rob Snevely, and Rick Aaron for supporting me in running this event!

Topics most discussed were:

  • Career development (77%)
  • Improving professional visibility (65%)
  • Technical skills development (54%)
  • Improving leadership or management skills (50%)
  • Discussing best path to success (46%)

Some replies to the follow-up survey question “What would you say to someone who was interested in participating in a future SEED Speed Mentoring session?”:

  • Excellent service from Sun. Anyone who is interested in career development, should avail this one.
  • Go for it but don’t expect it to answer all your questions.
  • Know what you want to get out of the sessions ahead of time. Try to conduct some research on who the mentors are ahead of time.
  • Sure. Do it. It’s a few hours that has a decent chance of broadening your perspectives.
  • Go in with a plan of what you want to discuss. Be aware of the limitations of such an exercise.
  • I would highly recommend it. It doesn’t take much time at all but can quickly provide some feedback and give one’s thinking process a nudge.
  • Please participate, since it inspires you to do routine things differently. It provides useful pointers to making career changes. It helps to make better choices Towards technical skills gained at work.

There are probably many successful ways to run a speed mentoring event. Here is SEED’s instruction document (approved for public distribution), complete with a flow chart:

How Speed Mentoring Works (4 pages, PDF format)

Pictures from the first SEED Speed Mentoring Session:

DSCN7913 . DSCN7916
DSCN7920 . DSCN7928

Images Copyright 2009 Katy Dickinson
Edited and updated 15 May 2018

2 Comments

Filed under Mentoring & Other Business

Good Free Games

I have been concerned to watch the Studio 17 kids at Santa Maria Urban Ministry playing mindless smash-and-blood or doll-dress-up games during their after homework computer time. I have started a list of “Good Free Games” as alternative suggestions. Studio 17 will also be buying some games (like Zoo Tycoon and Crayon Physics) soon.

I asked my 16-year-old son Paul to research and recommend Good Free Games which were fun to play but also educational. Some of these require flash software (will not work on an iPad) and all have advertisements to wait through (that’s why they are free). I added to Paul’s list games recommended by other sources. This afternoon, Studio 17 tried out about half of the games listed here and had a very good time. Additional suggestions are welcome!

I am adding to this list as we find more games, see More Good Free Games – or do a web search for “Good Free Games”.

16 February 2014 – links updated

3 Comments

Filed under Church, Home & Family

Excellence in Preaching Series – Schell, Lyman, Countryman

On 4 September, I wrote about St. Andrew’s Episcopal Church holding a three part Excellence in Preaching series. Three remarkably gifted, different, and distinguished speakers and authors each had one day to preach twice and then offer a ninety minute seminar. The series is designed to better equip the listener to recognize and respond to different preaching styles – and to appreciate even those styles that may differ from personal preference. Photos follow of the speakers:

    • 14 September 2008: Rev. Donald Schell, All Saints Company Consultant and Creative Director and founder of St. Gregory’s, San Francisco
    • 26 October 2008: Rev. Dr. Rebecca Lyman, Professor Emerita of History, Church Divinity School of the Pacific (CDSP), Berkeley
    • 16 November 2008: Rev. Dr. Bill Countryman, Professor Emeritus of Biblical studies, Church Divinity School of the Pacific (CDSP), Berkeley

This was an inspiring and thoughtful series! I learned from and admired each of the speakers. I hope that St. Andrew’s continues to offer excellent education opportunities like these.  In the final series sermon two days ago, the Rev. Dr. Countryman considered three of the more difficult stories told by Jesus – the parables of the Ten Talents, Prodigal Son, and the Workers in the Vineyard. Each parable presents a question of generosity and fairness in human versus divine context. Every time I hear those stories, I secretly sympathize with the third slave who was cast out, with the older brother who felt ignored, and with the grumbling laborers who worked all day.

Rev. Dr. Bill CountrymanRev. Dr. Bill Countryman at St. Andrew's Saratoga, CA<br /> photo: copyright 2008 Katy Dickinson Bill CountrymanRev. Dr. Bill Countryman at St. Andrew's Saratoga, CA<br /> photo: copyright 2008 Katy Dickinson Bill CountrymanRev. Dr. Bill Countryman at St. Andrew's Saratoga, CA<br /> photo: copyright 2008 Katy Dickinson
Rev. Dr. Rebecca LymanRev. Dr. Rebecca Lyman at St. Andrew's Saratoga, CA<br /> photo: copyright 2008 Katy Dickinson Rebecca LymanRev. Dr. Rebecca Lyman at St. Andrew's Saratoga, CA<br /> photo: copyright 2008 Katy Dickinson Rev. Dr. Rebecca LymanRev. Dr. Rebecca Lyman at St. Andrew's Saratoga, CA<br /> photo: copyright 2008 Katy Dickinson
Series BrochureSt. Andrew's Saratoga, CA Excellence in Preaching series brochure<br /> photo: copyright 2008 Katy Dickinson Rev. Donald SchellRev. Donald Schell at St. Andrew's Saratoga, CA<br /> photo: copyright 2008 Katy Dickinson Rev. Donald SchellRev. Donald Schell at St. Andrew's Saratoga, CA<br /> photo: copyright 2008 Katy Dickinson

Images Copyright 2008 Katy Dickinson

Leave a comment

Filed under Church, News & Reviews