5 ms·

Overcomplexifying, Underdelivering

57 points by imdsm 11y ago

Roboprog 11y ago
How does one hold the requirements for "700 systems" in one's head? The only way that could possibly work is if the original systems are grossly repetitive and unoriginal (variations on 2 themes, perhaps?).
- joshuarrrr 11y ago
  What's worse is that they didn't try to even hold those requirements on paper.
  - Roboprog 11y ago
    touche`!
- rm445 11y ago
  That must be the case, right? Software being as diverse as it is, probably a creative individual could sit down and name 700 types of software application, but more likely they were numerous variations of CRUD, shuffling information in and out of databases, managing who could access what information, and presenting it in various ways. Clearly there is something very wrong at the planning level of these big, failing, IT projects. Perhaps the temptation to begin by writing down all the commonalities between different software systems and seeing how one big system could do everything is part of the problem. But it's also easy to see how it is tempting to do so.
fnordsensei 11y ago
Overcomplecting* Some make serious money out of scope creep in IT projects. Sometimes I think that this must be how the major consultancies are sustaining themselves. Someone wrote that the /average/ IT project ran 10x over budget. This would be completely unacceptable in any domain but IT.
- avn2109 11y ago
  In fairness, plenty of "real engineering" project have similar outcomes. See for example Boston's Big Dig or the DoD's Joint Strike Fighter.
  - rch 11y ago
    Keep in mind the often-huge software budgets within those projects.
- joshuarrrr 11y ago
  Hi, I'm one of the authors of the piece. As my co-author would say, the industry is fueled by failed projects. But because outright failure is common, huge overruns can be seen as a success when they actually manage to deliver anything of use.
- sjbase 11y ago
  I worked at a major consultancy and this is definitely true. The major parties in a large enterprise IT project are (in shit-rolls-downhill order): 1: The enterprise itself 2: Strategic advisors (consultancy) 3: Integrators (often the same company as #2, or a competitor) 4: Software vendors (note the plural) 5: Third-party QA All but #1 have a structural incentive to make projects bigger the same way a mechanic has a structural incentive to "find new problems." The client always has final say, but people underestimate how hard it is to keep saying "no" to multiple reputable firms all warning you against going too small. That said, this kind of swindling is far from ubiquitous. There's a philosophy that blindly upping scope is shortsighted, and you do better in the long run by actually representing your client's best interest. Where I worked, I found it pretty easy to surround myself with people who thought this way.
  - ep103 11y ago
    Don't forget that many enterprises end up replacing their own staff completely with people on the consultancy payroll. Apparently it can make the company look better on wall street's books? So the end result is that 1 and 2 become the same people. ISPs are rife with this.
haddr 11y ago
To me this is another attempt to show how expanding the scope of the system will affect it's failure rate. It is known that the bigger the system, the higher the chance of failure to deliver it. What is interesting is that this article brings another fresh look on scenarios where such rule happens: replacing multiple legacy systems with new and supposingly better one.
CaptSpify 11y ago
This is why I hate "all-in-one" systems. Systems that try to do it all, end up being hard to work with, and just introduce multiple points of failure. IMO, it's better to decouple systems and have each of them do one job, and do it well (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_philosophy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_philosophy). Then moving things around isn't as complicated or impactful.
lewisl9029 11y ago
The title reminded me of my favorite Rich Hickey talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rI8tNMsozo0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rI8tNMsozo0 A lot of problems in software arise from choosing the easy route (i.e. gem install hairball), with no regards for the complexity it could bring into your project. Do this enough times and your project could easily end up like one of the projects described here: a massive mess of complexity that's excruciatingly difficult and risky to change and improve.
RankingMember 11y ago
This reminds me of the F-35 program as a whole. By trying to make it do everything, they end up with a plane that does nothing particularly well (and is prone to technical problems).
ilaksh 11y ago
It makes sense to survey and try to think of ways to consolidate common functionality and data, but after a certain amount of that you need tackle modernization in small chunks, even though you will need a good way for systems to talk. And the business deal needs to be structured in small chunks too. If you try to make a giant deal up front that is supposed to encompass all spending and tasks that many managers, engineers, or companies can think of, of course you are going to overrun. Or similarly trying to reproduce/refactor all of the efforts over several years of the predecessor teams of engineers and managers. And another part of this is that people are bidding, which means you have to be in the ballpark of the other bids, and you probably need to be lower than the lowest bid, and everyone has an incentive to bid lower regardless of the actual scope because they have to make their bid attractive to have an opportunity to even actually examine the real requirements. But its even harder because estimating even a lone software project is very difficult. Its hard to sell realistic budgets, since business people are often used to interacting with relatively simple to use software like Excel, where it might take a day to figure out the most complicated part of a spreadsheet for a certain purpose. By the way, don't underestimate the power and real value of spreadsheets to business people.
perlgeek 11y ago
> One solution is to try to make more realistic initial estimates. But more realistic initial estimates won't win the contract for your company. I don't know about the legal situation in the US, but in the EU, the lowest bidder gets the contract. So everybody has the best incentives of making a (sometimes even ridiculously low) initial estimate, and then find reasons to charge more. And such reasons are always to be found, since requirements won't remain stable over the course of a multi-year projects. They never, ever do. And any change can be sold as an expensive scope creep that costs a few million USD.

57 points by imdsm 11y ago

How does one hold the requirements for "700 systems" in one's head? The only way that could possibly work is if the original systems are grossly repetitive and unoriginal (variations on 2 themes, perhaps?).

joshuarrrr 11y ago
What's worse is that they didn't try to even hold those requirements on paper.
- Roboprog 11y ago
  touche`!
rm445 11y ago
That must be the case, right? Software being as diverse as it is, probably a creative individual could sit down and name 700 types of software application, but more likely they were numerous variations of CRUD, shuffling information in and out of databases, managing who could access what information, and presenting it in various ways. Clearly there is something very wrong at the planning level of these big, failing, IT projects. Perhaps the temptation to begin by writing down all the commonalities between different software systems and seeing how one big system could do everything is part of the problem. But it's also easy to see how it is tempting to do so.

fnordsensei 11y ago

Overcomplecting* Some make serious money out of scope creep in IT projects. Sometimes I think that this must be how the major consultancies are sustaining themselves. Someone wrote that the /average/ IT project ran 10x over budget. This would be completely unacceptable in any domain but IT.

avn2109 11y ago
In fairness, plenty of "real engineering" project have similar outcomes. See for example Boston's Big Dig or the DoD's Joint Strike Fighter.
- rch 11y ago
  Keep in mind the often-huge software budgets within those projects.
joshuarrrr 11y ago
Hi, I'm one of the authors of the piece. As my co-author would say, the industry is fueled by failed projects. But because outright failure is common, huge overruns can be seen as a success when they actually manage to deliver anything of use.
sjbase 11y ago
I worked at a major consultancy and this is definitely true. The major parties in a large enterprise IT project are (in shit-rolls-downhill order): 1: The enterprise itself 2: Strategic advisors (consultancy) 3: Integrators (often the same company as #2, or a competitor) 4: Software vendors (note the plural) 5: Third-party QA All but #1 have a structural incentive to make projects bigger the same way a mechanic has a structural incentive to "find new problems." The client always has final say, but people underestimate how hard it is to keep saying "no" to multiple reputable firms all warning you against going too small. That said, this kind of swindling is far from ubiquitous. There's a philosophy that blindly upping scope is shortsighted, and you do better in the long run by actually representing your client's best interest. Where I worked, I found it pretty easy to surround myself with people who thought this way.
- ep103 11y ago
  Don't forget that many enterprises end up replacing their own staff completely with people on the consultancy payroll. Apparently it can make the company look better on wall street's books? So the end result is that 1 and 2 become the same people. ISPs are rife with this.

haddr 11y ago

To me this is another attempt to show how expanding the scope of the system will affect it's failure rate. It is known that the bigger the system, the higher the chance of failure to deliver it. What is interesting is that this article brings another fresh look on scenarios where such rule happens: replacing multiple legacy systems with new and supposingly better one.

CaptSpify 11y ago

This is why I hate "all-in-one" systems. Systems that try to do it all, end up being hard to work with, and just introduce multiple points of failure. IMO, it's better to decouple systems and have each of them do one job, and do it well (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_philosophy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_philosophy). Then moving things around isn't as complicated or impactful.

lewisl9029 11y ago

The title reminded me of my favorite Rich Hickey talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rI8tNMsozo0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rI8tNMsozo0 A lot of problems in software arise from choosing the easy route (i.e. gem install hairball), with no regards for the complexity it could bring into your project. Do this enough times and your project could easily end up like one of the projects described here: a massive mess of complexity that's excruciatingly difficult and risky to change and improve.

RankingMember 11y ago

This reminds me of the F-35 program as a whole. By trying to make it do everything, they end up with a plane that does nothing particularly well (and is prone to technical problems).

ilaksh 11y ago

It makes sense to survey and try to think of ways to consolidate common functionality and data, but after a certain amount of that you need tackle modernization in small chunks, even though you will need a good way for systems to talk. And the business deal needs to be structured in small chunks too. If you try to make a giant deal up front that is supposed to encompass all spending and tasks that many managers, engineers, or companies can think of, of course you are going to overrun. Or similarly trying to reproduce/refactor all of the efforts over several years of the predecessor teams of engineers and managers. And another part of this is that people are bidding, which means you have to be in the ballpark of the other bids, and you probably need to be lower than the lowest bid, and everyone has an incentive to bid lower regardless of the actual scope because they have to make their bid attractive to have an opportunity to even actually examine the real requirements. But its even harder because estimating even a lone software project is very difficult. Its hard to sell realistic budgets, since business people are often used to interacting with relatively simple to use software like Excel, where it might take a day to figure out the most complicated part of a spreadsheet for a certain purpose. By the way, don't underestimate the power and real value of spreadsheets to business people.

perlgeek 11y ago

> One solution is to try to make more realistic initial estimates. But more realistic initial estimates won't win the contract for your company. I don't know about the legal situation in the US, but in the EU, the lowest bidder gets the contract. So everybody has the best incentives of making a (sometimes even ridiculously low) initial estimate, and then find reasons to charge more. And such reasons are always to be found, since requirements won't remain stable over the course of a multi-year projects. They never, ever do. And any change can be sold as an expensive scope creep that costs a few million USD.