So What’s New?

Problem

How do you deal with the reaction that a pattern adds no value because it is so obvious?

Context

Patterns are said to be “discovered not invented”. Therefore some experienced developers are likely to be utilizing patterns “without knowing it”. For them best practice is standard practice, and any given pattern might look like common sense at best or trivial at worst. On the other hand there are also likely to be, especially among novices) people for whom the pattern is genuinely new as a solution to a recurring problem.

Forces

Patterns are “discovered not invented” BUT there are always people for whom ‘old’ stuff is new
Patterns are abstract and tend towards simplicity in their presentation BUT often the relationship between patterns in, say, a pattern language maintain the essential complexity of the solution rather than do the individual patterns
Genuine masters of their trade, by definition, already use the best patterns BUT best practice needs to be articulated if a culture of design is to be created

Solution

Welcome comments such as “This is the way I do things already” as validations of the pattern, but seek counterexamples to show the value of the pattern to novices. Celebrate the wisdom of the master craftsperson and focus on her as a source of further patterns.

Resulting Context

Validation of the patterns as best practice
Identification of experts as future sources of pattern mining
In some cases, the establishment of a learning relationship between ‘master’ and ‘apprentice’.

Rationale

See Alexander’s Gradual Stiffening pattern

Role Play

Problem

How can you be sure that someone’s (or a group’s) understanding of a pattern or a system is the right one?

Context

In the face of a novel idea or new technology the recipient claims to have understanding. But sometimes this masks a misunderstanding or even a resistance to the innovation.

Forces

It is difficult to acknowledge (to one’s self, let alone other people) a failure to understand BUT misunderstandings need to be uncovered.
Failings perceived to be ‘individual’ are hard to bear BUT in a group context failings can be shared and overcoming them can boost ‘team spirit’
There is, most often, a will to succeed in learning BUT there is, sometimes, a wilful resistance to being taught something new
People tend to describe new ideas, experiences in terms of old ones BUT sometimes the perceived continuity is less real than it at first appears.

Solution

In a workshop situation do a walkthrough or run a software simulation that exercises their understanding. Establish a “no blame-no shame” environment in which to carry out the exercise. Run the exercise iteratively and incrementally until success is achieved.

Resulting Context

Misunderstandings will (at least) be identified and as a result (hopefully) remedied.
Group dynamics may well be improved
“Imprint experiences” gained through the role play may well be longer lasting than with traditional techniques
Confidence will be established (or otherwise) that a certain level of understanding has been reached, thus providing a solid platform for further learning.

Rationale

Walkthroughs and simulations reveal misunderstandings. They cannot be fudged. They succeed or fail. By carefully crafting a “no blame – no shame” environment gaps in understanding on behalf of individuals and/or the group can be identified, and iteratively revisited until the gap is closed. CRC walkthroughs in responsibility-driven design utilise this technique. The SOMATiK anti-case tool that supported the SOMA method achieved the same effect through software-based, graphical simulations.