Historical errata for Driving Technical Change

Trying to sell those types of features would have been as waste of time.

Trying to sell those types of features would have been a waste of time.

The flow from introduction to the resistance pattern is very harsh. A better intro into the resistance pattern would be helpful

First paragraph, last sentence: “…who really helped polish a lot of rough edge”, add an ‘s’ to ‘edge’: “…who really helped polish a lot of rough edges”.

Second paragraph: “Both skeptics and the converted taught me a great about…”; the word ‘deal’ is missing: “Both skeptics and the converted taught me a great deal about…”

Last paragraph: “Unit tests makes you less vulnerable to bugs, as does UI testing.” The agreement of subject and verb is incorrect: either “Unit tests make you…” or “Unit testing makes you…”; probably the latter to be consistent with “UI testing” at the end of the sentence.

Penultimate paragraph: “The important thing to do is to put yourselves in their shoes…”; replace “yourselves” with “yourself”.

Penultimate paragraph: “All you have to just tell them about it.” Re-phrase, e.g. “All you have to do is tell them about it.” or “You just have to tell them about it.”

Third paragraph, the following sentence is difficult to understand and should be rephrased: “That feeling of shock and disbelief you feel—you know because someone who actually knew better wasted their time doing work they knew they didn’t have to do—that’s pretty common around the herd.”

Last paragraph: “That why you usually prepare well before you talk to a group about an issue.” => “That’s why…”

Last paragraph: “Like Lucy to your Charlie Brown, Bernard has give you hope..” => “Like Lucy to your Charlie Brown, Bernard has given you hope…”

3/4 down the page: “Trying to sell those types of features would have been as waste of time.” => “Trying to sell those types of features would have been a waste of time.”

First paragraph: “Once your done with that…” => “Once you’re done with that…”

Last sentence: “If they do still do development while managing..” remove the first “do”.

One underlying cause I have seen very often for the behaviour of the “irrational” is that they don’t understand the technology you are pushing and don’t want to admit to it, especially in front of other people. So dealing with them like the cynic or the uninformed, but in private can sometimes do wonders.

I’m not sure about the value of the “Don’t feed the crazies” box. It needs clarification to convey its message.

Section 3.3: “Uniformed” (multiple occurrences) should be “Uninformed”.

Pages 52,60,65 - Uniformed should be Uninformed. (Some were fixed from B1 to B2 - perhaps a global check would be fruitful.)

“the more open your mind becomes and the less likely you will
to fall into the trap.”

you will fall
(to is too much)

“The second point in very important. I make the assumption that you will share your knowledge.”

is very important (not in)

I recommend making the example names less generically “English” and male. We work with people with names like Narinder, Katya, Julieta, and Ming — it sounds more realistic to describe a diverse workplace.

Incorrect pluralization: “You don’t deal with the Crazy’s any differently.”

Should be: “You don’t deal with the Crazies any differently.”

I dislike the very casual language here: the style is not formal through the rest of the book, but something about this particular sentence is jarring: it sounds like the voice of a teenager. “In some ways it’s kinda lame, sort of like telling you, “if you work hard, diet, exercise, you too can lose weight.”

“But you cannot approached the hard group, until you at least
have some converts on your side.”

cannot approached => cannot approach
the hard group => the hardest group

“Clearly this shortcut for getting to the uniformed.”

Verb missing?

“If you’re in the midst of some sort of tactic driven even,t like a team meeting” - superfluous comma inside the word “even,t”

“However, as we’ll see in the (as yet) unwritten chap.harnessconverted the converted can be powerful allies in this effort.” - the chapter does exist in this version.

By ensuring that your solution>s< fit>s< your group, you remove pain points, or uncomfortable bunching.

An expert >that< isn’t growing isn’t an expert, because growing is what makes you an expert. (shouldn’t people be referred to as “who” even if they’re experts?)

Every tool or technique has its limit. Every>(need a space here)<one has a task or a category of tasks it does not handle well.

Answering with a confident, knowledgeable response goes a long way to >shutting them down.< (is this the desired implication? Please elaborate.)

Being able to go deeper than the Cynics will allow you >shut them down.< (same issue as above, plus a typo if this wording is intended: “to shut them down.”)

People will dig their >heals< in if they feel they are being attacked or unfairly criticized.

At first glance it would seem >to not affect< other people, because you write unit tests to work with your own code. (word order improvement: “not to affect”)

Jump onto the public forums for the tool you>r< are trying >< push.

Two uses of “brown-bag session” on the same page: the content seems redundant around both references.

There are a number of ways, but one that >jumps to mind< occurred while I was writing this book. I have logo stickers for the software products I promote >on my laptop<. (“comes to mind” is more frequently used) (move “on my laptop” after “stickers”)

Usage of the phrase “by and large” on pages 19 (twice!), 48, 49, and 72 is distracting. This reader suggests a simpler word such as “generally.”

Also, MySQL >had just had just< passed to a new owner

I’d make the argument that you should be doing these things anyway, but to each >their< own. (“his” / “his/her” / etc.)

“>Even if they are,< most people have to be confronted to own their mistakes.” (This is unclear.)

Any perception of >dishonestly< will immediately cause them to clam up. (also, “clam up”: is that what is meant? They won’t object to the perceived dishonesty?)

There’s a meme that >come< from the Bible

It allows you to get noticed by people who are trying to solve similar problems >(to the ones)< you are trying to solve.

They may make >that< criteria public, or they might not. (“those” or “the”)

It is a pretty typical MVC framework that integrated with a couple >(of)< other buzzword frameworks (dependency injection and ORM).

However, if your organization has problems with bug>s< fixes frequently conflicting with each other, you have a good case for unit testing on bug fixes.

Rupesh wanted to get his web>(hyphen, not space)<developing co-workers onto Eclipse.

He wanted to make >is< easier to push source control, build scripts, and continuous integration further down the line.

It works because you use people’s own desires >against them<. (This reader doesn’t believe the statement. You’re using their desires to achieve your goal, and the company’s goal, and ultimately, the skeptic’s goals.)

In the movie Office Space, one of the small repeating joke>< is the TPS report.

There’s a big difference between “I have this great thing…just so you know, you have to use x to take advantage of it.” and “Before I get started, you should know you have to….” (This reader does not see the difference at all. Please clarify.)

As always, you have to make sure you aren’t attacking the Burned, but >you have proof that they can get back up on the horse.< (This reader does not understand the analogy. Please clarify.)

If that happens, you have >(a)<cool solution that doesn’t help you with your goal.

They become advocates, and you continue to the next >most easy< group and repeat. (“easiest”? “most skeptical”?)

Not including people, even the Irrational, in your efforts might seem a bit passive>(hyphen, not space)<aggressive.

You’ll have to demonstrate that whatever irrational, maybe even impossible>(,)< problem they have is not relevant to the professional development tool you are trying to introduce.

Therefore, the key is to avoid them as one would a pit of spikes, instead of seeking to beat them in a bare-knuckled fight to the death. (Incompatible metaphors, please rephrase.)

Add to it that there isn’t >(just)< one thing that will convert them.

But you cannot approach the hard group>,< until you at least have some converts on your side. (and italicize “some”?)

If you cannot convince co-workers who are ostensibly your peers to come over, why should the Boss? And >they’re< not wrong to have that attitude. What’s more likely? You didn’t mention your tool to the rest of your team and instead talked to your Boss first, or you tried to get them on board, no one bought it, and you’re trying to get >them< to mandate it. (Please rephrase and clarify.)

If you want them to actively participate in the effort or even if you are merely repeating any opinions they have expressed, you >have to< absolutely have to ask.

One person can be easily dismissed, but with each person >that ("who")< repeats your message, it becomes harder >(for the listener)< to ignore it.

You can’t always convince everyone, and you sure>(ly)< can’t convince the Irrational. (or “you rarely can”?)

I had pushed frameworks, code generation, and unit testing >to no mostly no ("mostly to no")< avail. I had heard pretty much the same old tired Time Crunched skepticism >for ("from")< them.

The last sentence of the first paragraph uses “hard” where it means “hardest”, and has an awkward comma. Change it to read, “But you should not approach the hardest group until you at least have some converts on your side.”

test-driven development should be TDD not TTD.

Those of us who have know that ignorance … Suggestion: Change “know” to “known”.

Page 79, 4th paragraph: Also, MySQL had just had just passed …Suggestion: Remove one time “had just”

Page 102, 3rd sentence in 21.2: one of the small repeating joke is the TPS report. Suggestion: Change “joke” to “jokes”

Page 126, in “You Don’t Always Reap the Rewards”: unit testing to no mostly no avail. Suggestion: remove “no” before mostly.

When detailing the grand strategy in the fourth paragraph, the following chapters are enumerated. The first item in the list incorrectly refers to the next chapter. It should be “Ignore the Irrational”, instead of “Ignore the Hostile”.