5 ms·

Some people argue that software development will move more and more to a gig model. In some cases it may make sense, but in many cases it doesn't. Mostly becaus

Some people argue that software development will move more and more to a gig model. In some cases it may make sense, but in many cases it doesn't. Mostly because of the knowledge you build up about the product and because software is never "finished". https://henrikwarne.com/2017/01/22/software-development-and-the-gig-economy/ https://henrikwarne.com/2017/01/22/software-development-and-...

fredley 9y ago
I have a theory that all really successful, long-lived software projects are either maintained by committed individuals or by institutions (in the most general sense of the word - an institution could be a really long-lived team, or an org like Google). There is no middle ground. Software projects that bounce around between teams, contractors or whatever are dead already.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- uiri 9y ago
  It seems like your usage of the word "institution" in the general sense is just a group of "committed individuals" perhaps with documentation in place for knowledge transfer as individuals leave and join the group. I think that joining/leaving at points is orthogonal to an individual's commitment while a member of the institution/group.
  - fredley 9y ago
    Yes, basically an institution is a long-lived collection of people, with at least some parts of it with extremely slow turnover of people. This is where the deep knowledge lives that can sustain large projects. An institution also implies to some extent a culture too - a set of shared practices unique to that group that foster a (hopefully) good environment for the project to develop. It is interesting to note that, broadly speaking, the world is becoming de-institutionalised. Talk to any older academic, engineer, doctor, etc., and they'll tell you that less and less people are interested in settling into a job for the long-term - for maybe their entire careers. The gig economy is one end of the scale, but it's happening across the board, and it's having many detrimental side-effects (talk to any older academic, engineer, doctor, etc.). Many of the more successful software companies today foster an institutional environment - one with a strong identifying culture, making it a more difficult place to leave (e.g. Google).
dalbasal 9y ago
One of the more interesting and accessible modern economists (published int he 30s, died recently) is Ronald Coase. A few years ago (before his death) he interviewed on econtalk where he complained about economics teaching "Coase theorem" with the exact opposite conclusions to the ones he intended. I was taught "coase theorem" so I went back and read his old papers. His perspective is all about examining transaction costs. He starts with absurdities, that exist but shouldn't given standard economics. If free markets and incentives are so important to economies, why don't they exist in companies. Companies are centralized bureaucratic organizations. Incentives are highly distorted and the structure is non dynamic. No internal exposure to "market" results, no competition, no creative destruction. Why don't contracts and dynamism yield an emergent company-like-thing where individuals contract with eachother? His answer is transaction costs, and the friction inherent in free market transactions. A side effect of the theory is that there is a tremendous amount of potential wealth lost to inefficiency and transaction costs.
- noam87 9y ago
  Any more on this subject for further reading / listening?
  - dalbasal 9y ago
    His original papers are as accessible as popular press. The big ones are “Nature of the Firm” and “The Problem of Social Cost.” For the 2nd one, Coase complained it is used to reach the opposite conclusion than he intended.^ http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-0335.1937.tb00002.x/abstract http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-0335.1937.... http://home.cerge-ei.cz/ortmann/UpcesCourse/Coase%20-%20The%20problem%20of%20Social%20Cost.pdf http://home.cerge-ei.cz/ortmann/UpcesCourse/Coase%20-%20The%... ^Essentially, Coase argues that in the absence of transaction costs, abcd. He meant this as a way of highlighting the importance of transaction costs, with abcd being obviously false in reality. Economists tend to assume efficient markets in their theory, so many read that statement to be boilerplate economist caveats.
- arethuza 9y ago
  Charles Koch has a management theory called "Market-Based Management" that claims to run the internals of organisations as markets with internal competition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market-Based_Management_Institute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market-Based_Management_Instit... [NB I'm in the middle of reading "Dark Money" so don't take this as a positive recommendation.]

fredley 9y ago

I have a theory that all really successful, long-lived software projects are either maintained by committed individuals or by institutions (in the most general sense of the word - an institution could be a really long-lived team, or an org like Google). There is no middle ground. Software projects that bounce around between teams, contractors or whatever are dead already.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
uiri 9y ago
It seems like your usage of the word "institution" in the general sense is just a group of "committed individuals" perhaps with documentation in place for knowledge transfer as individuals leave and join the group. I think that joining/leaving at points is orthogonal to an individual's commitment while a member of the institution/group.
- fredley 9y ago
  Yes, basically an institution is a long-lived collection of people, with at least some parts of it with extremely slow turnover of people. This is where the deep knowledge lives that can sustain large projects. An institution also implies to some extent a culture too - a set of shared practices unique to that group that foster a (hopefully) good environment for the project to develop. It is interesting to note that, broadly speaking, the world is becoming de-institutionalised. Talk to any older academic, engineer, doctor, etc., and they'll tell you that less and less people are interested in settling into a job for the long-term - for maybe their entire careers. The gig economy is one end of the scale, but it's happening across the board, and it's having many detrimental side-effects (talk to any older academic, engineer, doctor, etc.). Many of the more successful software companies today foster an institutional environment - one with a strong identifying culture, making it a more difficult place to leave (e.g. Google).

dalbasal 9y ago

One of the more interesting and accessible modern economists (published int he 30s, died recently) is Ronald Coase. A few years ago (before his death) he interviewed on econtalk where he complained about economics teaching "Coase theorem" with the exact opposite conclusions to the ones he intended. I was taught "coase theorem" so I went back and read his old papers. His perspective is all about examining transaction costs. He starts with absurdities, that exist but shouldn't given standard economics. If free markets and incentives are so important to economies, why don't they exist in companies. Companies are centralized bureaucratic organizations. Incentives are highly distorted and the structure is non dynamic. No internal exposure to "market" results, no competition, no creative destruction. Why don't contracts and dynamism yield an emergent company-like-thing where individuals contract with eachother? His answer is transaction costs, and the friction inherent in free market transactions. A side effect of the theory is that there is a tremendous amount of potential wealth lost to inefficiency and transaction costs.

noam87 9y ago
Any more on this subject for further reading / listening?
- dalbasal 9y ago
  His original papers are as accessible as popular press. The big ones are “Nature of the Firm” and “The Problem of Social Cost.” For the 2nd one, Coase complained it is used to reach the opposite conclusion than he intended.^ http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-0335.1937.tb00002.x/abstract http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-0335.1937.... http://home.cerge-ei.cz/ortmann/UpcesCourse/Coase%20-%20The%20problem%20of%20Social%20Cost.pdf http://home.cerge-ei.cz/ortmann/UpcesCourse/Coase%20-%20The%... ^Essentially, Coase argues that in the absence of transaction costs, abcd. He meant this as a way of highlighting the importance of transaction costs, with abcd being obviously false in reality. Economists tend to assume efficient markets in their theory, so many read that statement to be boilerplate economist caveats.
arethuza 9y ago
Charles Koch has a management theory called "Market-Based Management" that claims to run the internals of organisations as markets with internal competition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market-Based_Management_Institute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market-Based_Management_Instit... [NB I'm in the middle of reading "Dark Money" so don't take this as a positive recommendation.]