10.6 Reference Models and Human Psychology

One of mankind's greatest psychological weaknesses is that they jump to conclusions too easily. Competent software architects can turn this weakness into a strength for their software organization and the software industry. By creating compelling reference models of software knowledge, they can lead their organizations to the appropriate conclusions.

Software architects command extensive knowledge about software technology, software organizations, and real-world business processes that their systems support. Knowledge is power-in this case, it is the power to change perceptions. For most people, perception is reality. Reference models are the pattern of the solution for transforming perception into real-world success. Here are some examples.

Reference models are commonplace in other fields of human endeavor. They facilitate successful practice in sales, investment, journalism, public relations (PR), economics, psychology, digital hardware design, and consulting. A classic sales reference model is person, organization, goals, and obstacles (POGO). The analogous reference model for investment analysis is strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT). Journalists and PR professionals use a reference model comprising six questions. These reference models provide an invaluable structure for human discourse that ensures quality. Interestingly, many of these models have been incorporated into software standards and practice. For example, the Zachman Framework adopted the journalistic reference model directly. The Reference Model for Open Distributed Processing assimilated models from economics and psychology to standardize software architecture viewpoints.

The Hardware Design Level Model (HDLM) has been used in digital engineering practice for more than two decades. HDLM separates design context and forces so that every electrical engineering student learns in college how to design and optimize digital logic circuits with relative ease. Reference models simplify problem solving so that ordinary professionals can practice their disciplines with world-class results.

Hence, there is a contradiction. Why haven't reference models been used to structure effective software practice? It appears that the most effective reference models are unknown by the profession and academia (e.g., the Software Design Level Model and RM-ODP). Other powerful reference models have been imposed with unfortunate consequences. For example, Capability Maturity Model certification has become the software equivalent of the Spanish Inquisition. Articulating reference models so that they assist in individual decision making is a kinder, gentler way to reform software practice, and ultimately more effective.

Signs of Egomania in Software Architects

Unable to write, talk, or otherwise communicate without resorting to the "royal we."

No longer associate with any detractors; in other words, all others have become either intolerable or irrelevant and thus isolated.

Forget that being an architect is about communicating and sharing rather than winning arguments.

Belittle their peers, for example, by referring to software developers as "grunts."

Think that their beliefs and notion of the truth is The Truth.

Get so caught up in being an expert that they see the next logical steps as "developing a movement" and "forming a religion" rather than helping others better add value to their projects.

Fail to hear out people who disagree telling them their comments are just a natural, biological response to a great idea.

Believe that creating an illusion is somehow different from misleading, conning, and lying.

Believe that this section is actually about someone else.

Reference Models as Perception

Applying the classic reference model for consulting intervention, there are three basic questions that software architects should consider:

What is the problem? Reference models are basic intellectual tools that are virtually nonexistent in software practice. Effective reference models exist but are relatively unknown by the profession. The corpus of software knowledge is not expressed in terms of reference models. The lack of reference models inhibits the profession from separating design forces and evolving software into an engineering discipline with successful, predictable outcomes.
Software professionals need reference models to understand abstractions. For example, the founders of the software design patterns movement (The Hillside Group) have claimed that four out of five software developers cannot abstract effectively. The Hillside Group's classroom experience is supported by Myers-Briggs surveys of the general population; only 20% of adults have the appropriate world-perspective to define abstractions. Reference models are a necessity in the confusing, rapidly changing technology environment in which we practice.
What are other people doing to contribute to the problem? The hard technology problems addressed by reference models are "application problems"-a phrase vendors repeat laughingly, all the way to the bank.
What are software architects doing to contribute to the problem? This question leads to a Gestalt turnaround. What can software architects do to resolve the problem? They can learn the available, effective reference models for software. They can educate and evangelize the profession toward the use of existing, effective reference models. When an important issue is unresolved by available models, they can create a new model, optimize it, and contribute it to the corpus of software knowledge. The instantaneous global reach of the Internet makes this imminently feasible. They can mentor their peers constantly about reference models, design patterns, and other forms of software problem solving. Software architects can take responsibility for their part of the mind-boggling problems and opportunities that the software industry is confronting. Through the articulation of reference models, they can help the software profession become more enjoyable and successful.

Biological Response Model

One of the most universally useful reference models describes biological response (Figure 10.1). This model shows what happens as a biological system is stressed to various degrees. It can be used to describe how people behave, psychologically, when stimulated, and how people can change their minds or behaviors. It is also a good description of how an individual might respond to external stimulation, so with an understanding of this model, software architects can choose to follow their biological instincts or another path.

Figure 10.1. Biological Response Model

graphics/10fig01.gif

The biological response model works according to various stages of excitement. Initially, if the stimulation is small, it is ignored, either deliberately or unconsciously. A conscious response might be "It's not important" or "I'm ignoring it." Biologically humans are drawn toward small stimuli.

As the intensity of stimulation increases, people's attraction changes, and they are increasingly repelled. The next level of psychological response is denial, or deliberate ignorance. In denial, people deny the truth or existence of a stimulus event. They turn away from it. They do this automatically; it's human nature, which makes controlling this part of the response very difficult.

As stimulation continues to increase, so does excitation. When a stimulus becomes impossible to deny, people become angry-or joyful-depending upon the situation. It is not possible to maintain a high level of excitation indefinitely. So, in short order, psychological energy is released (e.g., an angry display or laughter).

If the stimulation persists beyond a state of excitation, then people experience depression (sadness) or a state of acceptance. Further stimulation above this level of intensity can be fatal.

In psychological warfare, people tend to use the biological response model to their advantage because, for most people, these are automatic responses of which they are not consciously aware. In fact, some people are so unaware of their own responses that they may not even know when they are angry, until they erupt in an excited frenzy. "Gone ballistic" is the popular phrase for this behavior.

Software architects use this model by adjusting the intensity of their architectural evangelism according to the situation and desired outcome. In some cases, they want to get something accepted without much controversy. This is called "flying under the radar screen." They keep the message at a very low level of intensity and mention the matter infrequently. In some cases, they want people to take notice and to change what they are doing in accordance with the architects' own ideas. In this case, architects may want to push the people right over the top of the model and get them very excited about the concept, with a goal toward changed behavior (acceptance instead of ignorance or resistance).

Group Applications of Response

"Civilization is the encouragement of differences. Civilization thus becomes a synonym of democracy. Force, violence, pressure, or compulsion with a view to conformity, is both uncivilized and undemocratic."
-Mahatma (Mohandas) Ghandi

The biological response model can also be applied to the facilitation of groups, although this application strays from the biological origins of this model. In theory, each individual has a group inside his or her mind, formed through early childhood experiences. This reference model indicates that all people have interactions between members of their internal group. Real groups are the extension of this concept into interpersonal interactions. So software architects use these concepts to explain that, if the response model applies to individuals, then it can also be extrapolated to groups.

As the model implies, people often get excited about something before they change their behaviors and accept it. Laughter is one way to push groups over the top and into release and acceptance. Laughter is a great way to diffuse successful situations and win arguments. The experience of laughter involves a high level of excitation and leads to an immediate release of stress (i.e., exactly what is being sought). Some of the best comedy is self-effacement-in other words, an individual makes fun of him/herself. Standup comedians are especially good examples. Much of their humor is based upon self-effacement. Also, the worst kind of humor relates to human body parts. Some professional comedians use this kind of humor too often for their own good. Avoid this kind of humor at all costs, for reasons such as political correctness.

In groups, response models tend to be linked together to create waves of responses. Since death is seldom an option, the group continues beyond each state of acceptance into a new curve of excitement. Software architects repeatedly want to bring individuals and groups to a high level of interest and excitement, make a decision, and then move on to the next matter. Meeting facilitation, covered in other chapters, uses the principles of biological response with groups in this way.

Software architects use meeting breakouts to enable people to create something (anything as a first draft), so that they often have ownership and are excited about defending it. It also establishes a starting point for discussion, even if it's bad. At this point, they have their chance to defend their ideas in public. That's very exciting for the presenter. If the presentation provokes a response from the audience, then the presenter can become very excited too. Good things are happening. The group has experienced excitement in very positive and negative senses. Either way can be equally beneficial from the facilitator's perspective. In either sense, an excited group is a group that can make decisions and implement choices vigorously. The last thing anyone wants is a group that's falling asleep. In that case, behaviors won't change and little progress will be made.