I've been working on this for a while, so it's probably worth posting something about it.

Palladio is a platform for data visualization and exploration designed for use by humanities researchers. We're in early beta at the moment and will be doing a series of releases throughout 2014. You can read about it and try it out here:

I think the website does a pretty good job of explaining the capabilities of the platform, so I'll leave that for the moment. I encourage you to go check it out before reading on, because it will be worth understanding how the platform works to give some context to the discussion below.

The map view in the Palladio interface

So, why am I super-excited about this? Mostly because of the great team, which has the vision, technical skills, theoretical and domain knowledge, and information design chops to pull off this type of project. I consider myself lucky to be able to work with this group.

It's also great to be working on a project like this for a field that is simultaneously very strong on information theory and a bit underserved in terms of some types of tools. This is in stark contrast to my usual enterprise data management and visualization work where the theory tends to be weak but a plethora of tools exist.

In addition to trying to build a tool that incorporates important and underserved aspects of humanistic inquiry, I am excited to work with a team that buys into introducing state-of-the-art concepts around data exploration tools in general. Many of the concepts we are working to implement in Palladio are directly applicable to the types of data exploration problems we find in the enterprise and are concepts rarely expressed in existing tools. Palladio is a great example (one of many great examples) of how the process of humanistic inquiry can motivate the development of methods that are both technically and conceptually applicable in wildly different disciplines.


The thing that initially most impresses people about Palladio is the way that filtering and movement are integral to the visualization. Specifically, the visualizations update and move in real-time as you filter. This is not a new concept, but I don't think I've ever seen it fully implemented in a general-purpose tool. Getting the level of movement right is a design challenge that the team is tackling as a work in progress, but in my opinion this characteristic of real-time updates and movement is a key feature for a data exploration tool, and few if any tools implement it.

I'll try not to get too squishy here, but this behavior of the tool allows a person to interact with the data in a very direct way, giving a feel for the data that would not otherwise exist. When you can see the results of your interactions with the data in real time, it is a lot easier to conceptually link step-changes and interesting events with the actions that caused them. For example, dragging a filter along the timeline component allows you to play back history at your own speed, speeding up or slowing down as suits you. My theory-foo is weak, but when you see it, I think you'll understand. Try it out with the sample data.


Techy alert: Palladio is a purely client-side, browser-based application. The only involvement of a server is to deliver the HTML, Javascript, and CSS files that comprise Palladio. We arrived at this design through a few iterations, but the motivation was that we wanted to be cross-platform, super-easy to install, and still support pretty big data sets and fluid interactions. 10 years ago, this would have been nearly impossible, but today we have web browsers that, amazingly, are capable of supporting these types of applications. Yes, browsers can now support dynamically filtering, aggregating, and displaying 10s and 100s of thousands of rows of data and displaying hundreds of data points simultaneously in SVG; thousands of data points if you use canvas instead.

The time for client-side data visualization in the browser has come and we are taking advantage of that in a big way. A great strength of browser-rendered visualizations is that they allow true interaction with the visualization. Just using SVG or Canvas as a nicer replacement for static images is fine, but it isn't fully exploiting the medium. Add to this that the type of interactivity we are providing with Palladio is technically impossible in a client-server setup. Even if the server responds to queries instantaneously, the round-trip time the client-server communication introduces means that interactions won't be as closely linked as they are in Palladio, severely degrading the quality of the interactive experience.

Admittedly, we have work to do on performance and our cross-browser support could be better. Additionally, the problem of data that simply doesn't fit in the browser's memory remains unaddressed, though we have some ideas for mitigating the problem. But I think this is an application design approach that could be exploited for the vast majority of data sets out there, either because the data itself is relatively small, or through judicial use of pre-aggregation to avoid performance and size issues.


Lastly, user experience and information design have been integral components of this project from the start. The design has been overhauled several times along the way, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if it happened again. To be clear, I'm a complete design newb, but we have a great designer working on the team. One thing that has become clear to me through this process is that designing a general purpose interactive visualization tool is hard. There are more corner-cases than I previously imagined possible, but we are trying to get the big pieces right and I think we're on the road to success.

Obviously the organizational dynamics on a small team like ours are very different than those in a big development organization, but it seems like information design on most of the enterprise data exploration tools from larger vendors either started out problematic and stayed that way, or started out pretty well and started slipping as the tool took off. I'm not sure if there is an answer to this, but it's clear that when building a tool in this space, having at least one information designer with a strong voice on the team is indispensable.

Let me sum up

So, that's the Palladio project, as well as a few takeaways that I feel can be applied back to pretty much any data exploration project. In closing, I'll just mention that none of this would be possible without some great open source projects that we use and, most importantly, without the great team working on this as well as the feedback and patience of our dedicated beta participants. The central Javascript libraries we used to pull this off are d3.js, Crossfilter, and Angular.js. The members of the core team are Nicole Coleman (our fearless leader), Giorgio Caviglia (design and visualization), Mark Braude (documentation, testing, working with our beta users, and project management), and myself doing technical implementation work. Dan Edelstein is the principal investigator.

It's been a great ride so far and we've got some exciting things planned for the rest of the year. This is definitely a work in progress, and feedback is very welcome. Follow the Humanities + Design lab on Twitter for updates.

ABAP development - the dream and the reality

Late last week I did a podcast with Jon Reed and Graham Robinson on SAP's developer engagement initiatives. You can watch that here.

This discussion, and the fact that I'm back doing some serious ABAP development after a lot of non-ABAP work, got me thinking about the value SAP's application ecosystem contains that developers would love to add to, to SAP's gain. But it's very difficult to add value in this ecosystem as a developer because of (among other things) the weaknesses of the ABAP development environment. What, I asked myself, would a truly strong ABAP development environment would look like. Here are a few thoughts:

  • ABAP system as a decentralized version control system (DVCS) node - An ABAP system should act as a true DVCS node. This is a good explanation of the nirvana you too could experience with a DVCS, with pictures of a cute dog. In short, an ABAP system should, at the package level or at the full system level, be able to commit changes, push those changes to a remote repository, pull changes from a remote repository, maintain branches, and merge (with user input if necessary) those branches. These descriptions use Git parlance, because that is what I know.
  • Branch and merge - Related to behaving as a DVCS, the ABAP system should be able to support full branch & merge semantics. I'm not sure how well I can explain this. I'll just tell you, it's a great feeling to have the ability to create a branch of a complex project, rip out an integral component, completely rewrite it, merge those changes back into the main development branch, and have none of the other 3 people working on closely related parts of the project notice any change expect that things just work better. I know. I did it last week. Oh, and I simultaneously made fixes as they were requested on other branches of the project and pushed those out to my co-workers while I was working on that rip-and-replace. Good luck pulling that off on an ABAP development system.
  • Namespaces - SAP should make namespaces available to open source projects for free, with minimal bureaucracy. And while you're at it, just do the same for everyone. What do I mean by "minimal bureaucracy"? A web form and account system that saves the namespace to a database after checking that no one else has already registered the same namespace. Why are namespaces important? They address the problem of naming collisions between development projects. Right now, the open source ABAP community mostly develops in the customer namespace. This is a recipe for naming-collision hell. But what other options do people have? SAP should to fix this, and fast. And while you are at it, make the namespaces versioned (see below).
  • Improve SAPlink & ZAKE, and include them in the standard distribution - SAPLink and ZAKE are the defacto standard ways to develop and distribute open source ABAP code. They are massive improvements over the status quo, but they aren't very widely installed, and they are not perfect. If SAP wants a healthy ABAP developer community, I'd recommend that SAP join these projects, contribute to them, and make them awesome. Then include (up-to-date) versions of them in the standard Netweaver ABAP distribution.
  • Speaking of up-to-date, implement ABAP package and dependency management - Maven is kind of a nightmare, but it works. Let's say I want an mock/fake library like MockA (highly recommended) to use in my ABAP Unit tests. I go out and find it on Github, install SAPLink (which doesn't work properly so I have to go back and activate everything), download the .slnk file, install that using SAPLink (which doesn't properly install some interfaces, so I have to reinstall it), and finally I can use it in my project. But I find a bug! So I report that bug to the maintainer, who is awesome and fixes it in less than a day. My reward? I get to do the whole download, install, install all over again. We should just be able to list library versions as dependencies of our packages, classes, and test classes, and the system should handle downloading and installing them. But this will result in organizational chaos, you say. No, it won't. Because everyone will be using namespaces, and those namespaces will be versioned, so we can have more than one version of a library installed and usable at a time.

Right now it's a bit frustrating to switch between ABAP and non-ABAP development. The tooling in the Javascript and Java ecosystems is so far superior and so much more concerned with developer productivity that it begins to be painful to return to ABAP. I can't imagine what it would be like to come to the ABAP ecosystem with no background.

This is a shame, because it's a nice language in a lot of ways, and the business applications that are accessible through ABAP are an absolute goldmine of information and business process execution logic that loads of developers would love to add value to, in the process creating a great deal of value for SAP. If they could only be productive on the platform. I'd love to see SAP take ownership of the developer experience and make the ABAP ecosystem flourish.

Gullible finance?

I own AAPL, and I have no idea what it's actual valuation should be, but when I saw this article about an analyst who thinks AAPL should be valued at $240 coming in over the Daring Fireball feed, I couldn't help but look.

What could this guy possibly be thinking? What are the financial reporters that give him a platform thinking? I'll admit, I couldn't help it. I don't know much about this stuff, but I dug in a little bit to try to figure it out.

Of course, the fact that David Trainer's PDF calculation pegs Apple's Net Operating Profit After Tax (NOPAT) for 2012 at under $11 billion is a little fishy since it was actually around $41 billion. Turns out, the analysis is based on a "what if" scenario assuming that Apple had a Return On Invested Capital (ROIC) for 2012 of 70% and for 2013 (to date) of 52%. These drive a calculated Economic Book Value per Share around $240, which is apparently Trainer's target.

Of course, Apple didn't have these ROICs, by Trainer's own calculations, so it's a bit foolish to run a "what if" scenario on them. The actual ROIC for 2012, shown here, was 271%. 270% vs. 70%, but who's counting? God knows how Trainer is calculating the "Total Capital" denominator in the ROIC calculation. It looks pretty close to Working Capital. But for 2013 I'd expect the ROIC to drop somewhat versus the 2012 level even if Net Income remains constant. This is because dividends have gone up and Total Capital should as well, according to Horace Dediu's analysis on Asymco. But for ROIC to drop to 52% by Trainer's calculations would take a truly massive drop in income or a much larger spike in capital expenditure than is indicated by Apple's 10K.

But really, I don't know anything about this stuff. Don't take my word for it. Take Trainer's. Given Apple's actual ROICs, what does David Trainer's analysis indicate the Economic Book Value per Share is today? Well, he conveniently cuts off this PDF one line before he reveals his value, but if we do a little math based on the Price to Economic Book Value per Share ratio we get:

$443 / 0.56 = $791

(Don't worry, I've saved the PDFs in case Trainer decides he needs to cut off a little bit more of the unadjusted calculation.)

Now, of course, there is a decent chance that Apple's ROIC will decline to something a little closer to its rivals over the next several years, but it's exceedingly unlikely it will fall off a cliff in 2013 and hit 52%. And it's a bit more than disingenuous to retroactively assume that a company reported different financial performance than it actually did.

How points can miss the point - thoughts on gamification

I like games. I like work.

But I'm bothered by "gamification" - the trend of using game design methods to encourage specific behavior in non-game situations, like the work environment. Usually this involves the use of points, badges, levels, and other feedback mechanisms. Often there is an element of competition involved.

Since I enjoy both games and work, one might think I'd be a fan of bringing the two closer together. Actually, I find the idea fundamentally problematic and prone to misuse. If I worked like I play games, or cared about work like I care about games, I would have been fired many times over by now.

What are we missing when we advocate gamification systems focused on points and badges? It might be a misunderstanding of games, or perhaps a narrow focus on a particular type of game or on a specific type of mechanic employed in games. Sure, the collection of points and levels can be enjoyable in games, but points aren't the intrinsic reason people play games. Points, in games and in gamification, are extrinsic motivators that can provide a temporary motivation boost or a  framework for a more intrinsic motivation, but which don't in themselves drive long-term engagement.

For every good game, I can show you something besides points that is the real reason I'm interested in that game. These reasons will be things like beauty, risk, competition, empathy, cooperation, excitement, mastery, surprise, uncertainty, approbation, story, joy, exercise, fear, relaxation, zoning out, maybe even friendship.

Sometimes points will enable one of these intrinsic motivators, but intrinsic motivators more often manifest in other ways and points are either absent or irrelevant. Points can even be counterproductive when deep intrinsic motivators like beauty, joy, mastery, empathy, cooperation, and friendship are in play.

Let's take an example. A game I've never played (it's PS3-only), but which crystalized some of these thoughts for me: Journey.

I've heard Journey spoken of as a unique game that emerged out of a unique development philosophy. In addition to wishing to tell a beautiful and haunting story, Journey attempts to create an anonymous social environment where interactions are overwhelmingly positive. In order to accomplish this, modes of interaction are severely curtailed. Players can make a single social gesture: a sort of "song" where the character's avatar hums a player-specific musical note and displays a glowing glyph over its head. Players can't interfere with each other (except to "recharge" each others' jump ability) and cannot communicate using language expect what it is possible to sing using these monosyllabic expressions.
Here is a video of some Journey game-play with a half-silly, half-serious running commentary. Watch a little.

I'd like to draw your attention to just before 10:00 in this video, as the avatar is skiing down a slope and the short monologue by the caster after this. Then keep watching for another minute to see him meet up with another player. To paraphrase, this is a game that gets you to want to explore using story, beauty, and curiosity. There are no points. There is only "I wonder if ...", "What happens next?", and "Wow". The only thing approximating leveling is the fact that the character gains an enhanced ability to jump and "sing" as the game goes on, but in the context of this game it appears to be more of a plot device than a leveling system. And yet, the player wants to go on, wants to explore and find out more about the story, and (most surprisingly perhaps) loves to interact with others in the world and considers them to be friends.

Journey uses beauty, story, curiosity, serendipity, cooperation, and friendship to make the game interesting, re-playable, and emotional. And it obviously succeeds. For me it's surprisingly riveting to simply watch someone else play the game. (If you want to know more, the first video in the series is here, and here is a review that mostly relates the experience of watching others play the game including a touching anecdote.) You don't get this kind of experience and meaning using only points.

The best games, like Journey, are games that aspire to be more than games. These games embody stories, art, community, cooperation, competition, opportunities for mastery, or all of these things. Yet, even these exceptional games don't capture our imaginations for all that long.

So what do we take from this? Mostly a lot of questions. Points systems are certainly useful in some situations, especially when used to structure competition. But I wonder if the overwhelming place of points in the gamification discussion belies something fundamental missing from the work environments we are trying to fix using gamification techniques. When we use points, levels, and badges to motivate, does that indicate a lack of intrinsic motivation in the environment? Are gamification systems acting as amplifiers of the meaning of our work, or are they attempting to impose an artificial rewards system that is at odds with the meaning of our work? If work is meaningful, wouldn't it be best to directly communicate that meaning to workers rather than filtering it through a metaphor of points and levels? If work isn't meaningful, or if the meaning of our work is negative or morally questionable, then why do we glorify the tools used to trick people into working on these things?

Shouldn't gamification be about the question of how, in our work environments, we communicate the meaning of our work? How do we provide opportunities for mastery, joy, beauty, and positive social interaction in the workplace and in our lives? Those, and other positive intrinsic motivators, are the goals. Points are, at best, a means to these ends.