5 ms·

This is simply false. True systemic quality will lower costs, speed production, and increase value all at once. The reason is that, beyond a certain organizati

This is simply false. True systemic quality will lower costs, speed production, and increase value all at once. The reason is that, beyond a certain organizational complexity, we fail at creating the systems necessary to create the positive feedback loops necessary for quality, low cost, and fast execution to flourish naturally. Instead, we live in dysfunctional organizations where the tradeoffs prevail, and we choose speed and cost over quality in nearly all cases. Most of the time, we don't understand how to even begin to think about quality at an organizational level. It's fully possible. Quality pioneer W. Edwards Deming explained the full system for creating an organization that is capable of quality in the first place. It mainly involves systems thinking, knowledge of variation, understanding psychology deeply, and creating systems of effective learning—and management and leadership versed in those new leadership competencies. Instead our instincts are to blame, to punish, to hold accountable, effectively to leave each engineer as an island in charge of his or her own level of quality—when an organization and its production is so far removed from individual control it's not even funny. We absolutely can write software like this—and we can do it quicker, and for lower cost. We need to work on the systems that produce and influence that quality/speed/cost relationship—not each individual part in isolation. There is a positive cycle to be achieved. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Edwards_Deming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Edwards_Deming

eloff 11y ago
You've stated that it's not more expensive. But everyone in the industry knows otherwise. Unless you can produce some evidence to the contrary, I'm going to insist it's you who is incorrect here.
- calinet6 11y ago
  That's a highly simplistic and incorrect viewpoint—and the correctness of a model is not dependent on popular vote. When looking at increasing quality (essentially, scope) in isolation of systems and the environment in which that quality is created, then the only way to increase quality is to increase cost. That much is true, but it's also incomplete. When looking at and eventually optimizing the whole system—from the customer and their needs, to the leadership of the company, to the clarity of purpose, to values and culture, to the intrinsic motivation of your employees, to methods of management, to your learning and education processes, to your processes of production, to your communication links, to your output and how it's measured, and how each is controlled and understood in great detail—you can and will improve quality much more than you could by simply increasing cost in isolation—and at the same time, you'll decrease your overall costs in the long term, you'll speed up production, and you'll increase sales and customer satisfaction. The end result is a better product, for lower cost, with more predictability, proud happy employees, and faster to boot. That's what Quality really means. Looking at quality in terms of cost alone is the naive mistake. Look at the whole system. And for some evidence, look at Japan circa 1948. These exact methods of systemic quality, "total quality control" and statistical quality control taught to Japan by W. Edwards Deming turned them from the ruins of World War II into the second largest economy in the world, to the point of such success that Japanese companies were putting American ones to shame by the 70's. They did this by following exactly the model I've described above, decreasing total costs, increasing quality, and improving time to market, all by focusing on their total systems across the organization. The proof is in the success of an entire country's economy, I don't know how it can get much clearer than that. It is not my fault that everyone in our industry has forgotten these lessons on running companies, but the prevailing methods remain incorrect, as does your original statement.
  - kjksf 11y ago
    Either you're wrong or literally every software company on the planet is wrong. I'm betting it's you. Please do prove us all wrong by starting up a software company that produces bug free software faster and cheaper than every other software company on the planet. There's a big pot of gold at the end of that journey. Go and claim it. If everyone else is as incompetent as you claim, it's going to be a walk in the park.
    - calinet6 11y ago
      Not only software companies, but most companies in the US are indeed wrong about the prevailing methods and styles of management and leadership. Is this really that surprising to you? Do companies you work with appear chaotic yet surprisingly successful? Do the same things keep going wrong? Do they get in cycles of cultural upheaval? And do we accept these things as "normal business" and go on with out lives, powerless to control them? And I'm not saying it's easy. Not at all. It might be the hardest problem in all of business—combining the true systems of work into a cohesive philosophy: systems, statistics, people, and knowledge. I'm just saying (and I'm just repeating the words of some great thinkers in the quality space, mind you) that if we change the way we think about quality and companies in general, we'll get a lot of gigantic unrealized gains in productivity. This happens naturally in many companies in small pockets, but human nature and psychology tends to break it down eventually. If I'm wrong, then a great many other people are also wrong, primarily W. Edwards Deming, who, as I noted, single-handedly turned around the entire economy of Japan using these exact methods and ideas. Here's a great place to start: http://www.amazon.com/Leaders-Handbook-Making-Things-Getting/dp/0070580286 http://www.amazon.com/Leaders-Handbook-Making-Things-Getting...
  - kabdib 11y ago
    If true, this is truly amazing. So here's a quick test: 1. Write a letter outlining the above to a VC. Explain how this works in somewhat more detail; 10-15 pages should get it across. Sure it's work. But you seem resolved, and the reward is great. If you pull this off, not only are you gonna get a Turing award, they're going to mint a whole new award and name it after you. Anyway, give it a decent treatment and mail it off. 2. Tell us how that went over. Hundreds of thousands, heck, millions of pretty smart people have been thinking of ways to solve "the software problem" for over 60 years. Many of those people are smarter than I am, and probably smarter than most of the readership on HN. The actual improvements have been incremental. I'm not saying there hasn't been improvement. For instance, we tend to write more secure systems these days, but security remains really, really hard. Saying "you're doing it all wrong" to the incredibly smart and driven people I know who are experts in security is pretty bold. So, I urge you to make a proposal and report back.
dllthomas 11y ago
"True systemic quality will lower costs, speed production, and increase value all at once." When you say "true systemic quality" are you speaking far beyond the scope of what any one company is responsible for? Otherwise, I suspect those replying to you are correct - if bug-free software can be written, quicker and cheaper than software that winds up retaining some bugs, based on work well enough known for 20 years, we'd be seeing someone out there winning with it.
- calinet6 11y ago
  No, absolutely not. I'm talking about the system of a single company; its customers, inputs, processes and people, and finally outputs. What do you think is the scope any one company is responsible for? Is there something about the quality of their output that they are not responsible for? I'm not saying bug-free software is the goal, and maybe I'm too far off on a tangent to still be relevant to this conversation—just trying to get across that bugs come from somewhere, you should think about what all that "somewhere" is by looking at the complex system surrounding it, and you should not punish your developers or put them under the metaphorical bridge to hold them accountable for not producing bugs. That is ridiculous and ignorant of the system, and the system between and around people—not the individuals themselves—are where bugs come from.
  - dllthomas 11y ago
    "What do you think is the scope any one company is responsible for? Is there something about the quality of their output that they are not responsible for?" They are not responsible for the output of other companies. My question was whether you were speaking to what one company could do, or what was prevalent in the development ecosystem. It seems that you were speaking to the former. I certainly don't hold a position that there are no gains to be had focusing on the system. I do think it is most reasonable to say we don't know how to attain them in a way that acheives quality (or specifically lack of defects) at the level envisioned up-thread. The ways we do already know to attain that level of quality do impose substantial cost. (And for the record, I certainly agree that individual punishment of developers is unlikely to get us to any better place.)
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

eloff 11y ago

You've stated that it's not more expensive. But everyone in the industry knows otherwise. Unless you can produce some evidence to the contrary, I'm going to insist it's you who is incorrect here.

calinet6 11y ago
That's a highly simplistic and incorrect viewpoint—and the correctness of a model is not dependent on popular vote. When looking at increasing quality (essentially, scope) in isolation of systems and the environment in which that quality is created, then the only way to increase quality is to increase cost. That much is true, but it's also incomplete. When looking at and eventually optimizing the whole system—from the customer and their needs, to the leadership of the company, to the clarity of purpose, to values and culture, to the intrinsic motivation of your employees, to methods of management, to your learning and education processes, to your processes of production, to your communication links, to your output and how it's measured, and how each is controlled and understood in great detail—you can and will improve quality much more than you could by simply increasing cost in isolation—and at the same time, you'll decrease your overall costs in the long term, you'll speed up production, and you'll increase sales and customer satisfaction. The end result is a better product, for lower cost, with more predictability, proud happy employees, and faster to boot. That's what Quality really means. Looking at quality in terms of cost alone is the naive mistake. Look at the whole system. And for some evidence, look at Japan circa 1948. These exact methods of systemic quality, "total quality control" and statistical quality control taught to Japan by W. Edwards Deming turned them from the ruins of World War II into the second largest economy in the world, to the point of such success that Japanese companies were putting American ones to shame by the 70's. They did this by following exactly the model I've described above, decreasing total costs, increasing quality, and improving time to market, all by focusing on their total systems across the organization. The proof is in the success of an entire country's economy, I don't know how it can get much clearer than that. It is not my fault that everyone in our industry has forgotten these lessons on running companies, but the prevailing methods remain incorrect, as does your original statement.
- kjksf 11y ago
  Either you're wrong or literally every software company on the planet is wrong. I'm betting it's you. Please do prove us all wrong by starting up a software company that produces bug free software faster and cheaper than every other software company on the planet. There's a big pot of gold at the end of that journey. Go and claim it. If everyone else is as incompetent as you claim, it's going to be a walk in the park.
  - calinet6 11y ago
    Not only software companies, but most companies in the US are indeed wrong about the prevailing methods and styles of management and leadership. Is this really that surprising to you? Do companies you work with appear chaotic yet surprisingly successful? Do the same things keep going wrong? Do they get in cycles of cultural upheaval? And do we accept these things as "normal business" and go on with out lives, powerless to control them? And I'm not saying it's easy. Not at all. It might be the hardest problem in all of business—combining the true systems of work into a cohesive philosophy: systems, statistics, people, and knowledge. I'm just saying (and I'm just repeating the words of some great thinkers in the quality space, mind you) that if we change the way we think about quality and companies in general, we'll get a lot of gigantic unrealized gains in productivity. This happens naturally in many companies in small pockets, but human nature and psychology tends to break it down eventually. If I'm wrong, then a great many other people are also wrong, primarily W. Edwards Deming, who, as I noted, single-handedly turned around the entire economy of Japan using these exact methods and ideas. Here's a great place to start: http://www.amazon.com/Leaders-Handbook-Making-Things-Getting/dp/0070580286 http://www.amazon.com/Leaders-Handbook-Making-Things-Getting...
- kabdib 11y ago
  If true, this is truly amazing. So here's a quick test: 1. Write a letter outlining the above to a VC. Explain how this works in somewhat more detail; 10-15 pages should get it across. Sure it's work. But you seem resolved, and the reward is great. If you pull this off, not only are you gonna get a Turing award, they're going to mint a whole new award and name it after you. Anyway, give it a decent treatment and mail it off. 2. Tell us how that went over. Hundreds of thousands, heck, millions of pretty smart people have been thinking of ways to solve "the software problem" for over 60 years. Many of those people are smarter than I am, and probably smarter than most of the readership on HN. The actual improvements have been incremental. I'm not saying there hasn't been improvement. For instance, we tend to write more secure systems these days, but security remains really, really hard. Saying "you're doing it all wrong" to the incredibly smart and driven people I know who are experts in security is pretty bold. So, I urge you to make a proposal and report back.

dllthomas 11y ago

"True systemic quality will lower costs, speed production, and increase value all at once." When you say "true systemic quality" are you speaking far beyond the scope of what any one company is responsible for? Otherwise, I suspect those replying to you are correct - if bug-free software can be written, quicker and cheaper than software that winds up retaining some bugs, based on work well enough known for 20 years, we'd be seeing someone out there winning with it.

calinet6 11y ago
No, absolutely not. I'm talking about the system of a single company; its customers, inputs, processes and people, and finally outputs. What do you think is the scope any one company is responsible for? Is there something about the quality of their output that they are not responsible for? I'm not saying bug-free software is the goal, and maybe I'm too far off on a tangent to still be relevant to this conversation—just trying to get across that bugs come from somewhere, you should think about what all that "somewhere" is by looking at the complex system surrounding it, and you should not punish your developers or put them under the metaphorical bridge to hold them accountable for not producing bugs. That is ridiculous and ignorant of the system, and the system between and around people—not the individuals themselves—are where bugs come from.
- dllthomas 11y ago
  "What do you think is the scope any one company is responsible for? Is there something about the quality of their output that they are not responsible for?" They are not responsible for the output of other companies. My question was whether you were speaking to what one company could do, or what was prevalent in the development ecosystem. It seems that you were speaking to the former. I certainly don't hold a position that there are no gains to be had focusing on the system. I do think it is most reasonable to say we don't know how to attain them in a way that acheives quality (or specifically lack of defects) at the level envisioned up-thread. The ways we do already know to attain that level of quality do impose substantial cost. (And for the record, I certainly agree that individual punishment of developers is unlikely to get us to any better place.)

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]