Cargo Bike Lifestyle

The Cargo Bike: Bullitt by Larry vs Harry

Larry vs Harry is a cargo bike maker based in Denmark, and Bullitt is the name of their flagship cargo bike.  They offer e-assisted and ‘manual’ versions (I’m fortunate enough to have the former).  You can see lots of great pictures that give you a broad sense of the bike on Instagram – links at the bottom.


How Does It Feel?

It handles really well.  It’s essentially the longboard of bicycles.  The front-loading cargo deck configuration means that the center of gravity is kept low (stable) and loads are visible (safer).  The cargo deck is still relatively narrow (less than the width of the handle bars) so it’s relatively streamlined and can still manoeuvre through tight traffic.

Basically the Bullitt is a great example of great European design: functional, elegant and balanced.

It is rated to carry 180 Kgs including the rider, which equates to you and a small truckload of groceries and or children.  My heaviest regular load is the weekly market shop for fresh fruit & veg (~20-30 Kg’s worth?) – more on that later.

As you can see, it’ll accommodate a wide variety of load types and can be used in a number of ways.

It goes fast.  Bullitt’s are equipped with the Shimano STePS system, which will assist you up to ~25 Km/h, after that it’s up to your legs and/or gravity.

Battery & Motor Performance

To understand this some local context is needed.  My daily commute is just over 4 Km, of which 3.3 Km’s of that is a steady 150 m vertical ascent (heading home).

The battery lasts me 5-7 days, based on approx. one return trip to town a day (x7), and depending on how much additional riding I do.  The journey home usually drains ~10-12% charge depending on how charged it is.

The STePS system has 3 assist modes: eco, normal, high, as well as no assist.  I tend to ride with the e-assist off except for when going up-hill or into a string head-wind.  Unless my load is especially heavy (or my knees are feeling particularly weak) I’ll stick to Eco-mode assist for the normal commute home.

According to the specs a full charge will assist you for 145 Km on the flat, for comparison High will assist you for 65 Km.  I tend to use eco to get better endurance, and frankly the extra power achieved by the more powerful assist modes isn’t something I find I need – but it’s good to have it in reserve.

Loads & Configuration

My goal is never to carry anything on my back ever again; I want to maximize the bikes ability to carry stuff and my own comfort.  I’m also keen for my configuration to be as flexible as possible.

My solution to this is:

  1. Flat open deck – no permanent / fixed side walls.
  2. A pair of large fish bins (approx. 41 x 64 cm) with lids for general cartage.
  3. A pair of army surplus ammo pouches for small items.

The bins have the same width and length but slightly different heights (28 cm & 19 cm), the idea being that the variety might come in handy.  They both have (interchangeable) lids which provide adequate protection from rain.  Depending on their relative orientation they can stack on top of each other or sit nested inside each other.

I have sliced up a foam camping mattress for padding – you can see it lining the front bin in the picture above.  A single layer of this seems to protect fruit adequately, as well as laptops, and you can always use a double layer (I got three sections from the one mattress).  The foam also helps raise your items off the very bottom of the bin, so if any moisture does make it inside your stuff is less likely to get wet.

The bins can be used a number of configurations:

  1. Stacked on top – as seen in the first picture above.
  2. Stacked within each other.  If the taller bin is placed in the lower one you get one big bin with the ability to expand out if you need the extra capacity.  f you stack the lower bin in the taller one you get a split level; e.g. you can put laptops and other ‘nice’ things in the bottom and other items in the top -like wet raincoats, dirty boots or whatever.


I have two cargo-straps: 1 x 3m and 1 x 4m.  The 3m will comfortably loop around the cargo deck and both bins top-stacked.  (Note: the strap needs to pass between the frame and the steering rod as you don’t want to impede the steering rod).

The 4m strap will comfortably to a double “n” loop over both bins high-stacked.  This is the configuration I am most using currently.  Imagine the loop starting at the top of the load – it passes down one side, goes under the frame and back up again; down the opposite side, under the frame and back up again, where it completes the loop.  This technique give s nice firm double strap.

Above: showing the double “n” loop, and an ammo pouch for small items.

I also carry two lengths of 6mm rope from the local marine supplies shop, which is great for random stuff.

Above: for comparison – the shorter fish bin inside the taller one; and “high stacked”.

Finally, I also have a few rubber bungies, these are made from recycled car tyres with a bit of dowel for a handle.  Basically you just need to carefully cut an intact cross-section so that you have a nice strong loop of rubber, and then loop one end around the dowel and back through itself (a little bit like the first step of tying a cats-paw knot).  You can extend these by hitching a second loop onto the first (like the longer of the three bungies, below).


The only minor pain is that with strapping stuff in I’m frequently forgetting things – either that I should have out, or need to put in, so I find myself messing about with straps and so on a bit.  But on balance its a pretty minor problem to have.


You’d think the longer wheel-base was a challenge – actually it’s not too bad, but you’ll want to be a little more conscious when planning stop-offs so that you can avoid having to do U-turns on the footpath.

The biggest challenge I find is inner-city stops where you want to change direction – you can pick up the rear of the bike and pivot on / manoeuvre with the front wheel easily enough, the only real challenge is available space.

As you can see in the video below, slow cornering around tight corners is no problem provided there’s enough space.

In terms of slow riding, I can stay upright doing as little as 4 Km/h.  The relative size of the wheels to the overall bike means the ratio of gyroscopic force the wheels produce is not as great.  But in general the Bullitt is really well balanced and great to ride.

Have I Ever Fallen Off?

Just the once.  It’s hard to pin-point the cause exactly.  It was early on in my Bullitt days, doing a sudden lane change on a wet smooth road.  There was a gap in the traffic and a car was offering me entry into the far lane.  I had both bins high-stacked with a bunch of gear.  I turned into the lane and rode across it, then sharply turned to straighten-up and the bike flipped over on it’s side and slid.

Did I hit a patch of oil?  Impossible to tell.  I think it was partially the sharpness of the turn, the wet conditions, and perhaps overall speed – not super fast but not hanging around either.

Once I fell I was pretty much just tobogganing along, the nature of the frame meant I was somewhat lifted off the ground by the mid-frame “h” shape off the handlebar stem, so apart from some minor scuffs I was unhurt.

Interestingly, I had the fish bins lashed down with a single cargo strap and they were totally intact – didn’t really move at all, so picking the bike up again and clearing the road was pretty easy.


Front-loading cargo bikes are super versatile, possessing good speed and manoeuvrability but with prodigious carrying capacity.  The Bullitt is an awesome example of this architecture of bike, and makes for a great car replacement.


  1. – designers and manufacturers of the Bullitt.
  2. – more information on the Shimano STePS system, 6000 series, which I have mounted on my Bullitt.  Various Bullitt models use different versions of the STePS system.
  3. – local Wellington Bullitt dealers.  They also carry other types and brands of cargo bike.
  4. – The Adventures of Pepper the Cargo Bike; me & Pep’s cruisin’ around Wellington and beyond.

Old World, New World: From Projects to Products, and More.

There’s a major new ethos emerging that is going to disrupt a lot of organisations (and careers), with regards to the delivery of systems and services: moving from being project centric to product centric.

Just to be clear, “Product” in this context refers to the processes and disciplines related to the development and delivery of products – not the purchasing or acquisition of existing products from someone else.

The purpose of this post is simply to get some basics information out to you, so that you can start to do your own research and thinking (mainly because I’m also going through that process myself) about what being product centric means.  On a related note, I’m going to write a Solution Architecture Handbook based on my experience, because there’s a real lack of good information out there about that; in preparing for that I’m increasingly seeing a major transition between two worlds – of which the project/product centricity is one aspect.

Old World / New World: Some Definitions

Let’s start with the “what”, as that will provide a point of reference. Here’s my current view of things that often typify the old and new worlds – I’d love to hear your thoughts on this:

Old World New World
Projects Products
  • Project teams and Support Teams (Throwing things over the fence)
  • IT and Business
Holistic Product Teams
Waterfall, Agile (Underground) Agile (Mainstream), Continuous Delivery, DevOps
Big Upfront Design / Architecture Emerging Architecture
Emergence of Digital, Digital Projects Digital as a natural blended element
Software and Infrastructure Infrastructure as Code

Obviously some big labels there – massive over simplification – and the intent is not to define any false dichotomies as things aren’t always so binary; additionally, I’m not trying to suggest that these are collectively mutually exclusive, for example, being project-based doesn’t preclude you from doing continuous delivery.

Some other factors to consider are the increasing maturity and pervasiveness of:

  1. Automation, specifically regarding development and deployment pipelines.
  2. Cloud-based platforms and offerings.
  3. Open source.

Unknown to me until very recently, Joshua J. Arnold arrived at a similar place (back in 2016 – the last point in the table below is credited to Maria Alfredeen – details in the linked content), although my understanding is that he’s orientated along product-thinking lines:

Plan Forecast
Resources Teams
Push Pull
Requirements Experiments
Projects Initiatives
Dates Cost of Delay
Big risky releases Continuous Delivery

So What?

Firstly, the emergence of “Product” as an ethos for delivery (and more) feels to me a lot like how the emergence of Agile felt back in the day (circa 2000-2005).  Something that significant is definitely something you want to be aware of – not just in terms of how you or your organisation may want to work, but also in terms of skills and experience you may want to acquire.

As I learn more about product-based thinking, I find that knowledge tends to fit well with my knowledge of Agile – they are compatible.  Then, as I work with various teams and organisations, I’m increasingly seeing situations where product oriented thinking appears to be desirable, feasible and viable.  For organisations already working somewhat successfully with Agile but in a project context I think the introduction of product thinking may help them further evolve.  For organisations not even at that stage it might be that product thinking helps them evolve faster or by a more direct route, even if the first step is to break down the IT / Business divide; or, it paints a bigger and more strategic picture for them rather than simply a transformation that is delivery focused.

What Do You Think? / Further Reading

Do you agree with my broad definitions of what often typifies the old and new worlds?

Are you seeing a similar transformation in a community, team or organisation that you’re a part of?

For anyone wanting to start exploring the world of product, Mind the Product run a comprehensive network of meet-ups, globally.  I’m a semi-regular participant of their Wellington events, which I have posted about previously (see: Customer Inspired; Technology Enabled – Product Tank Wellington MeetUp with Marty Cagan and Fireside Chat with Zheng Li, VP of Product @ Raygun – Product Tank Wellington MeetUp).

How to disable UI debugging tools for Xaml in Microsoft Visual Studio

This trips me up because I don’t do it regularly enough to remember it; how to disable the XAML debugging tools widget in UWP apps:

UWP UI Thing

Kind of ironic given what my next post will be.  How to disable:

  1. From main menu: Tools > Options
  2. In Dialog navigation (left pane): Debugging > General
  3. In content pane (right hand side):
    1. Scroll to the bottom
    2. Untick “Enable UI Debugging Tools for XAML”

Thanks, Senthil Kumar B:


The 7 Deadly Sins of Developer Experience with Cristiano Betta #APIDAYSAU

One of the sessions I enjoyed the most at API Days 2018 was Cristiano Betta’s talk on Developer Experience (DX), i.e. how to more effectively engage with developers who are consuming your API’s.  The learnings go beyond developer onboarding specifically, and are applicable to product development in general – which is partially why it was so cool.

Slides here:

I also caught-up briefly with Cristiano afterwards where he expanded on a couple of points, as the talk he gave was a slightly shorter version of a longer talk.

An overarching theme was reducing cognitive load through the use of fundamental design principles.  The deadly sins he covered were mainly around information:

  1. Too much
  2. Too soon
  3. Too little
  4. Unstructured
  5. Unsupported
  6. Incomplete

…with “no control” over tools as #7.

There was a variety of points of interest that I noted down, which I’ll briefly cover, but the things that really grabbed my interest were:

  • “Too little / too late”, which is effectively about taking a holistic approach.
  • The idea of measuring and responding to developer friction.

Note – the focus of Cristiano’s talk is around the developer experience in terms of on-boarding rather than the API design itself – for more info on that (developer experience in terms of API design) you might want to check out something like APIs You Won’t Hate.

Too Little, Too Late

This is partially about documentation – but not in the sense of manuals, it’s more about providing enough information when it is needed.  Case in point: resolving errors.

The example Chistiano gave was when a developer is making a call to your API (probably the for the first time) and they encounter an error – e.g. related to input.  Let us say they call your API which provides this response:

  "error": "000123 - Invalid input"

What you want to avoid is the situation where the developer needs to resort to internet searching.  Sure, you might have it covered in your help documentation:

Developer Guide – Error Codes – Page 421

Error 00123 – Invalid input.  Occurs when you use a boolean on a Friday, on Friday you must use an int: 0 = false and 1 = true.

Your problem is that developers will already have formed familiar techniques for dealing with issues like this, probably using online resources – resources they are familiar with, and which through habit present them with a relatively low cognitive load.

There are many reasons why this is bad: you have no control over the experience, how long it will take and how frustrated they will get – not to forget “OMG, I can’t believe they don’t just say that” and “why is this so unnecessarily hard” comments all over

What’s The solution?

A better way to do it is to include useful information in the responses error message itself:

  "error": "000123 - Invalid input. 
    Occurs when you use a boolean on a Friday, on Friday 
    you must use an int: 0 = false and 1 = true."

Yes, you can also have this information in your developer guide.  The trick is including the relevant information when it’s needed; not too much, not too little, and just at the right time.  This leads on nicely to another cool concept…

Developer Friction

Adrian Trenaman’s QCon NY 2017 presentation on Developer Experience included the idea of minimising “the distance between ‘hello, world’ and production”.  In that context he was discussing development in a holistic sense (tooling, environment, and so on) where you are employing developers, but as Cristiano explained to me, you can also look at “developer friction” in the context of developer adoption of your APIs.

In this context, developer friction is effectively the amount of time between (a) making an API call that errors and (b) the first successful call to the same API – or some meaningful variation along those lines, such as the time between developer registration and their first successful API call.

So, imagine that you have 10 developers a day signing up to your API and making their first ‘hello world’ call.  Let’s say 50% of them get an error the very first time they make a an API call, and on average 90% of those developers are able to make a successful call within 2 minutes.  Now compare that to a situation where 80% get an error the first time, and of those 90% take on average 2 hours to make a successful call.  Clearly the second situation has much higher developer friction.

According to Cristiano, some organisations use techniques like this to monitor adoption of their APIs and specifically to help them identify areas where their overall developer experience may need improvement.

Other Gems

I won’t go into these concepts in much detail, and hopefully you should be at least aware of them already – if not I kindly (and strongly) suggest you check them out.  Cristiano’s slide-deck is a great place to start.  It covers a lot more than what I have included here.

Cognitive Load, Overload and Progressive Disclosure

Cognitive load refers to the effort being used in the working memory; cognitive overload is where (for example) a learner is unable to simultaneously process a certain amount of information or tasks.  Solutions to this include:

  • Chunking information up, e.g. into lists of about 8 items, with a useful heading.
  • Applying the 80/20 rule, e.g. call out the small number (~20%) of items that developers are most likely going to be seeking, especially if they are new to your platform, and leave the other 80% accessible but through other navigational means.

That second point is an example of Progressive Disclosure, a great technique for managing cognitive load, covered in detail in the book “Universal Principles of Design”.

Another really interesting pitfall around cognitive load was around asking people question, like on sign-up forms:


As Cristiano explained, this may look simple but it raises a lot of questions in peoples heads – questions which might not seem a big deal to you but can be problematic for others (especially if it’s mandatory):

  1. Who will see this?
  2. Can I change it later?
  3. What do you need it for?

These 3 simple question really resonated with me, and they provide a simple checklist you should consider when reviewing questions you ask your customers.  I know from firsthand experience that questions like this, in some circumstances, often force me to stop and think way more than should be necessary.

Tools Out of Control

This is where community tools and SDK’s are more obvious than yours.  Unfortunately Cristiano didn’t have time to go into this in a lot of depth in terms of solutions, but clearly SDK’s and other tools are a integral part of your offering, and a critical part of DX; therefore it’s critical to have a plan in place for managing these as part of your product.

This is most likely going to include monitoring the community – where they are; understanding what tools they want; staying engaged.

Using Structure

Another nice 3 point list was around structure – i.e. allowing people to navigate through the information you provide them:

  1. Where am I?
  2. Where can I go?
  3. Where did I come from?

Telling a Story

Whilst having information in inherently useful structures is good, you can augment this in key situations (such as developer onboarding) with Story Telling – another technique covered in the Universal Principles of Design.

Cristiano cited Pusher as an example of doing this well – the “hello world” make your first app story.  Here’s the screenshots, as you can see the path from account creation to “hello world” has been streamlined, and users can easily opt out of this if they want.






Real World Machine Learning with Susie Sheldrick #APIDAYSAU

I’m at the API Days conference, and one of the first sessions of note was Deep Learning: Real World Applications with Susie Sheldrick, which explored some of the practical real-world challenges related machine learning, based on experience.  I also caught up with her after the session where we expanded on some of curlier questions.

Quick Context: 30 Second Intro to Machine Learning

Susie kicked off with a simple diagram that sums up what machine learning is in comparison to traditional applications:


Machine learning partially turns this model on its head: the solution is able to “learn” its own rules (through training its internal rules model) at much greater scale than some person/team coding them by hand.  So, rather than feeding data and manually created rules into an solution, simply train the solution to produce its own rules.

The Chaser

This nice intro kicked off a mental train of thought for me: in practice the more complete solution probably looks something like this:


The end goal is still to build an solution that provides the answers users were seeking, we’re simply using machine learning to help out with the rules.

Devil in the Detail

That all sounds wonderful on paper – or in ivory-tower pixels – but, as should be no surprise, the real world is not so straightforward.

Of critical importance:

  • Understanding the problem you’re trying to solve.
  • Gathering the right data to train the model.

This is much easier said than done, it transpires that:

  • It’s all too easy to inadvertently train bias into the rules model.
  • Tracing exactly how the AI made a specific decision actually turns out to be really hard.

Whilst the second point has obvious implications for developers and testers, both points combined have massive implications for your legal teams, anyone who considers themselves ethical (like you, right?), product owners and anyone at the receiving end of a machine determined decision.


Susie gave some examples of unexpected and undesirable bias ending up in rule models, such as one experiment that determined prisoners eligibility for parole.  It turns out that the model significantly favored granting parole to white prisoners and was relatively much less favourable to prisoners of colour.   In contrast, in terms of parolees reoffending – the actual results were the exact opposite of the bias.

It turns out that the information used to train the model was “correct” but only in the sense that it faithfully transposed the bias already inherent in the legal system, against people of colour.

True Representation

A related issue isn’t so much of bias in the data, but of bias stemming from an absence of data.  Once more issues of race come to the fore; this time it was a passport application solution that told an Asian gentleman his submitted photo “did not meet our standards” because he was “asleep”.  As you might be able to guess, the model had obviously not been sufficiently trained with data that faithfully represented the entire user base, and therefore could not correctly handle non-european facial features.

Just to be crystal clear, the technology is more than capable of correctly handling a wide range of cases, nuances and subtlety – including racially based facial features.  The actual issue is the correct training of the model – meaning it’s critical to gather the right data, data that covers the entire spectrum of cases.  Not to mention testing and monitoring the behaviour of the solution.

Building an AI Solution: Custom or OOTB?

If you’re about to embark on a project that involves machine learning, one of the practical questions you’ll come up against is whether or not you can use an Out-Of-The-Box (OOTB) solution, or need to custom build something.  Susie’s discussion here was mostly in reference to the rule models specifically.  If you want a model capable of identifying cats in pictures online for you meme generator – you’re in luck, but if you need to correctly identify something more obscure, or more specific, you may have to build this model yourself.  Which is why the stuff above about bias is so important, because you’re going to have to navigate that minefield yourself.

Further Questions

Our chat after the session was very stimulating; a couple of the more curly questions that our conversation provoked were:

How to identify, and test for, unexpected bias?

The obvious ethical reaction to all of this is “great, let’s ensure we keep unwanted bias out of the model and our solution”.  What is much less obvious is how to do that.

Were the team behind the parole example conscious of the bias in that solution?  Let us assume they weren’t aware of it – in such a situation how would they (or you) identify that bias, and in addition, having established an operational solution how would you ensure none was introduced?

This is where, for me, machine learning is like a lens that amplifies human behaviours and bias.  It has the potential to help expose them, but how clearly, how soon, and at what cost?

How will your model react in the event of change over time?  I.e. if there is a fundamental shift in the (data) foundations on which the model was originally conceived and trained?

For example, Google is looking at moving back into the Chinese market, despite pulling out some years ago due to human rights concerns.  Hypothetical example: let’s assume that they have machine learning models built up, based on the data they currently have access to – i.e. does not include China’s current population of 1.3 billion.

What would happen if 1.3 billion Chinese people suddenly have access to a Google solution that is backed by a rules model that was not trained with them in mind?  Sure, Google’s data should be a fair representation of their current global user base, which will include Chinese – but wouldn’t adding 1.3 billion people potentially shift the model?  How will it react?  Will the responses it provides be biased against the new user population because hitherto they were not expected by the model?  Will the model be able to adapt over time, and if so how long will that be?


Please note that this post is based on rapidly scrawled notes in session and my recollection of subsequent discussions – my accuracy should be reasonable but may not be perfect.


Fireside Chat with Zheng Li, VP of Product @ Raygun – Product Tank Wellington MeetUp

The Product Tank Wellington meetup ran a “fireside chat” last night with Zheng Li, who is currently VP of Product with Raygun – a Wellington-based company, currently on loan to the U.S.

The conversation covered her career path to Product via UX, advertising, championing women in tech and passion for business, as well as delving into specific topics with being a product person.

Here are the key takeaways I jotted down, which I’ve tried to organise by topic…

Career Path

Zheng gave us a neat little story about how she started out (in a sense): a classic tale of taking something that nobody else wanted to do and absolutely nailing it.

The task was designing banner ads for TradeMe.  She obviously attacked her self-imposed challenge with passion and drive (significant keys to success on their own), but I also noted that:

  • She formed a loose multidisciplinary team which (I think) included people with knowledge and access to data analytics and marketing folks.
  • Was data driven – each time she/they ran a new design, they would analyse the data to see what was working and what wasn’t, and think about why that was the case.

The other factor which she used to her advantage was being able to iterate at an appropriate speed – which was obviously supported by the data she and her team had access to.

Some pretty obvious takeaways there, a key one for me would be about being data driven / enabled > implication: you need to have the data.  As a data architect colleague of mine once said: before doing any data design, you must first think about what questions you will want to ask your data.

Other stand-out points around career path included:

  1. Turning weaknesses into strengths, by using them as differentiators.  The context for this was around credibility.
  2. Follow your passion.  Zheng laughed in response to a question – someone asked something which inferred she had planned her career out; she said that in retrospect her career may look like it was planned but the reality at the time was anything but.  Her response to challenges was to consciously seek out ways of addressing these – which in her case frequently included training courses, which she collectively found effective (I think for one particular area she did 7 different courses).
  3. People want to work with people they like and trust.  Zheng spoke of this in reference to relationships between companies, but it’s obvious from her perspective that this is based on interpersonal rapport.  It’s not hard to see this concept also applying at a personal career level – something I can attest to having also experienced it first-hand.

Another key career theme Zheng had was based on “that venn diagram” – meaning the three overlapping lenses in Design Thinking which cover business/viability, technology/feasibility and people/desirability.  The specific terms she used might have been a little different, but for me the connection was pretty clear.

Her basic advice was to become proficient and confident in any two of these lenses; although that seemed to be somewhat tempered with her other guiding principle of being customer focused – which suggests the business/viability and people/desirability lenses.

“Product” Means Being Close to Customers

This was one of Zheng’s key themes.  Part of this was getting out and talking to customers, which is critical.

It was interesting to hear of her experiences using product “management” (my term, not hers – can’t recall exactly what she called it) as a selling tool.  The basis for this was:

  1. Selling the value of the product, not the product.
  2. Establishing a 1-on-1 rapport with people, and understanding what kept them up at night.
  3. Taking the time to really understand that problem from different angles.

As far as point #3 goes, that meant engaging with different people in the organisation to understand the problem from their perspective: technical, marketing, sales, etc; this obviously links back to the three lenses of design thinking mentioned above, and being close to customers – all good sensible product management stuff.

We can also expand this theme out “customers” to “people”.  In her experience, product management is more about being people-based than technology based (this was mentioned in reference to a technical product for developers).

There was also a leadership angle: for her leadership was about aligning the purpose of her staff to the purpose of her business.  The implication here is to talk with the people on your team and really understand what drives them and where they want to go with their career.

A Quick Note on Persuasion

If you want to persuade someone (such as your product manager – if you’re a tech working on the product, and you have a pet feature you want to add), you need to two things:

  1. Speak in the language of the audience.
  2. Back it up with data.  This could be qualitative such as customer feedback, or quantitative data showing conversion rates.

Producty Bits

Dealing with Product Debt

Something I really liked was how she addressed debt – debt in the sense of technical debt, and even marketing debt, and so on: things which worked but could work better and had gotten to the point that they were affecting the bigger picture.  She referred to it (I think) as the “99 issues” or “99 problems” story.

  1. They got all the issues and logged them into Jira – meaning that they got it all out into the open.  Not just development/technical debt, everything.
  2. Presumably some sort of sizing and prioritisation work took place.
  3. They then knocked off a number of the items, reducing the overall debt.

The way she spoke seemed to indicate this was an annual event – which didn’t happen every year.  Bit of a spring-clean, I guess.  Zheng didn’t call it out specifically but based on her other comments I presume space in the teams capacity / product roadmap was allocated to this work.

Another interesting idea which occurred to me as she described this was the technique that Agile / Scrum teams sometimes use, whereby they adopt a sprint goal – something non-deliverable – that they want to improve during the course of the sprint/iteration/timebox.  Zheng didn’t explicitly say that was what they were doing but the idea seems relevant.  Zheng, if you ever read this I’d be interested to know if that concept was one you consciously used or were aware of.


Items on a roadmap (i.e. the implied promise / expectations set) should be based on two things:

  1. The teams capacity to deliver them.
  2. Evidence that a given feature is wanted by customers.

Pushing Back

Don’t be afraid to push-back.  If a customer requests a feature (for example) that  is outside your roadmap and/or ability to deliver then be wary of following the money.

This definitely fits with my experience; I tend to think that at a inter-business level or interpersonal level, the relationship needs to be built on mutual trust and respect – if the other party does not reciprocate then they’re probably not someone you want to be dealing with.

Zheng gave two examples:

  1. A major multinational effectively tried to bully their 50 wanted features on top of Zheng’s existing product roadmap – “you want our business or not”?  To have done so would have caused massive chaos within the company, affecting product delivery and so on.  Zheng counter-proposed a different approach which she and her teams could sustain.  The multinational rejected the offer and went elsewhere – only to return months later, accepting Zheng’s proposals.
  2. Another major company approached Zheng with features (she didn’t give specifics but I think we can guess their approach was more reasonable and more adaptable).  Zheng recognised that some of these features would be great differentiators for their product, so (presumably) some changes were made to the product roadmap and the featured added – in essence Zheng followed the money,  but did so because there was further advantage than just the money.

Final Thought: The Iron Triangle

At one point Zheng told an anecdote about a developer talking with her about code quality.  I forget the story but it reminded me of the the old “Iron Triangle” or project management triangle – the one that is made up of scope, quality and cost (or some similar combination; cost and time obviously being closely related).  The model effectively states that you can control any two; the implication being that if you nail people down in terms of scope and cost (or time) you have no control over quality.

I asked Zheng if she was familiar with that model and how she approached it.  Her answer wasn’t as clear-cut and direct as I would have hoped (which is not a criticism – having presented publicly I know how hard it is to provide an off-the-cuff answer that is cohesive and concise), but seemed to boil down to this:

  1. Her first substantive reaction was to discuss scope and features, so I would guess that this is her first priority.  This would align with her other comments that put great importance on being close to the customer and understanding their needs.
  2. Her second substantive reaction was to discuss product roadmaps, specifically in reference to their timing and how they are used as the basis for cross-team coordination (marketing and so on), so I imagine time would be her second priority.

By default this would leave quality to manage it self; but we shouldn’t forget the “spring clean” approach, whereby random items of debt (arguably involving quality) can be addressed in a structured way.



Use a Single Object Reference Globally in a UWP Application

Sometimes you might want a single object reference that can be accessed from any page within your application.  Creating an instance of it on the App using App.Current may be appropriate.

In this example we’re using a string, but you could easily use a custom object of your own creation.

In the App.xaml.cs file:

sealed partial class App : Application
  public string SomeValue;

  /// <summary>
  /// Initializes the singleton application object. This is the first line of authored code
  /// executed, and as such is the logical equivalent of main() or WinMain().
  /// </summary>
  public App()
    this.Suspending += OnSuspending;

    // Do any initiation work here - just don't break the app 
    // or do anything that will slow it down too much.
    SomeValue = "New Value";

To use in your code, e.g. on some page somewhere:

public sealed partial class SomePage : Page
  App _AppReference = App.Current as App;

  void SomeMethod()
    _AppReference.SomeValue = "New Value";



Using the Clipboard in UWP

How to Copy to Clipboard (Text String)

using Windows.ApplicationModel.DataTransfer;


dataPackage = new DataPackage();
dataPackage.RequestedOperation = DataPackageOperation.Copy;


How to Paste from Clipboard (Image/Bitmap Data)

using Windows.Storage.AccessCache;
using Windows.Storage.Streams;


DataPackageView dataPackageView = Clipboard.GetContent();

if (dataPackageView.Contains(StandardDataFormats.Bitmap))
  IRandomAccessStreamReference imageReceived = null;
  imageReceived = await dataPackageView.GetBitmapAsync();
  if (imageReceived != null)
    using (var imageStream = await imageReceived.OpenReadAsync())
      var bitmapImage = new BitmapImage();
      imgImage.Source = bitmapImage;

      dec = await BitmapDecoder.CreateAsync(imageStream);

      var data = await dec.GetPixelDataAsync();

      imgBytes = data.DetachPixelData();
      imgWidth = dec.OrientedPixelWidth;
      imgHeight = dec.OrientedPixelHeight;

      // FYI, Overall image L-R, Top-Bottom.
      // Groups in reverse order: BGRA BGRA BGRA


Dynamically Populate a UWP Grid using C#

This technique works for columns and rows, you just have to use the correct definition object, ColumnDefinition or RowDefinition.

Note the references to your specific grid instance (e.g. myGrid) and Grid methods (e.g. Grid.SetRow()).


ColumnDefinition colDef;

for(int i = 0; i < myArray.Length; i++)
  colDef = new ColumnDefinition();
  colDef.MinWidth = 50;

  // Create a new instance of a TextBlock
  // or any other control; making a factory 
  // method(s) is usually wise.
  TextBlock txt = MyTextBlockFactoryMethod();
  Grid.SetRow(txt, 0);
  Grid.SetColumn(txt, i);
  txt.Text = myArray[i].ToString();