7 ms·

Sometimes it feels this is so because we have a lot less number of ruins when it comes to IT related projects. Stop construction of a building you have a gigant

by rick_2047 16y ago

Sometimes it feels this is so because we have a lot less number of ruins when it comes to IT related projects. Stop construction of a building you have a gigantic half constructed bloat of concrete and bricks. Nothing can be reused (except for the land). Stop construction of a program and you will have some files which can be deleted, all the machines are general purpose and all this can be reused.

patio11 16y ago
I think it is partially because nobody has figured out how to reliably estimate project costs and timetables for software. If houses routinely came with estimates like "We think this house will cost between $200k and $2.6 million to build, and it could be done in between 6 months and 10 years, and at the end it may or may not have a bathroom", every general contractor in the country would be in the unemployment line. "Oh, the wizards burned through another $300,000 last month. Well, who knows what those wizards do. Tell them to get the payroll system ready by next month, OK?"
- weavejester 16y ago
  I think the problem is more fundamental than that. The requirements for a house are pretty much static. The requirements for an application are often in constant flux.
  - rikthevik 16y ago
    I think the requirements for the house change a lot more than you think. There's definitely a push/pull with the client in civil engineering as well. And for contractors, oh boy, do they deal with clients changing things on them constantly. I don't have much faith in most Enterprisey teams to ship good software even if they have a thorough concrete spec. We love to blame changing / incomplete specs, but I'd imagine that most dysfunctional teams would manage to bone up a perfect spec anyway.
    - weaksauce 16y ago
      The largest problem is that the people telling you what they want are not good enough to through every possible path the user may want to go down. This leads to specs that are ambiguous at best, contradictory at worst. It takes a good developer to see the hidden things in the spec and raise the questions that need to be asked before the development goes too far down a bad path.
    - rmc 16y ago
      Programmers have it worse: http://ifaq.wap.org/computers/architects.html http://ifaq.wap.org/computers/architects.html
  - napierzaza 16y ago
    What makes up a house is generally understood. A application or game is often a custom job with all sorts of different features and functions. Any decent company should be measuring these things as best they can. It appears that is often isn't done. It's remarkable that EA hasn't been able to do this since they have a bevy of projects that they should be able to use as a rough yard stick.
- robryan 16y ago
  The analogy fails though because most houses are build in a standardized way, software would have to be pretty much wholly the result of picking and matching preexisting components.
  - jonhendry 16y ago
    Houses probably aren't the best comparison. Commercial real estate is probably better, being a larger investment and with more interests pulling in different directions. http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y17/jamesinclair/IMG_6378.jpg http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y17/jamesinclair/IMG_6378.j... A huge hole in the middle of Boston's Downtown Crossing shopping district. The historic Filene's department store building was torn out, to be replaced with a 38 story tower. Funding evaporated. The project stalled in November of 2008.
- Aetius 16y ago
  The software entity is constantly subject to pressures for change. Of course, so are buildings, cars, computers. But manufactured things are infrequently changed after manufacture; they are superseded by later models, or essential changes are incorporated into copies of the same basic design. Callbacks of automobiles are ready quite infrequent; field changes of computers somewhat less so. Both are much less frequent than modifications to fielded software. In part, this is so because the software of a system embodies its function, and the function is the part that most feels the pressures of change. In part it is because software can be changed more easily--it is pure thought- stuff, infinitely malleable. - Fred Brooks, No Silver Bullet
  - billswift 16y ago
    Good essay but I don't think he adequately addressed the problem of transaction costs for changing software, either in process or later updating, of course that wasn't his primary point (it has been a while since I read it and I could be misremembering).
- jacoblyles 16y ago
  I think you've just described government contracting.
- gaius 16y ago
  Ahem: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Parliament_Building#Timeline_of_cost_increases http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Parliament_Building#Ti...
cryptoz 16y ago
> you will have some files which can be deleted I sure hope nobody deletes files after stopping work on a project. What a waste. Storage is so incredibly cheap...
- megamark16 16y ago
  Agreed. Putting files on tape and sending them to Iron Mountain is the new Delete button.
vannevar 16y ago
I agree. There is no field of human endeavor (except war) where you can spend so much and have so little to show for it, as the enterprise software business.

patio11 16y ago

I think it is partially because nobody has figured out how to reliably estimate project costs and timetables for software. If houses routinely came with estimates like "We think this house will cost between $200k and $2.6 million to build, and it could be done in between 6 months and 10 years, and at the end it may or may not have a bathroom", every general contractor in the country would be in the unemployment line. "Oh, the wizards burned through another $300,000 last month. Well, who knows what those wizards do. Tell them to get the payroll system ready by next month, OK?"

weavejester 16y ago
I think the problem is more fundamental than that. The requirements for a house are pretty much static. The requirements for an application are often in constant flux.
- rikthevik 16y ago
  I think the requirements for the house change a lot more than you think. There's definitely a push/pull with the client in civil engineering as well. And for contractors, oh boy, do they deal with clients changing things on them constantly. I don't have much faith in most Enterprisey teams to ship good software even if they have a thorough concrete spec. We love to blame changing / incomplete specs, but I'd imagine that most dysfunctional teams would manage to bone up a perfect spec anyway.
  - weaksauce 16y ago
    The largest problem is that the people telling you what they want are not good enough to through every possible path the user may want to go down. This leads to specs that are ambiguous at best, contradictory at worst. It takes a good developer to see the hidden things in the spec and raise the questions that need to be asked before the development goes too far down a bad path.
  - rmc 16y ago
    Programmers have it worse: http://ifaq.wap.org/computers/architects.html http://ifaq.wap.org/computers/architects.html
- napierzaza 16y ago
  What makes up a house is generally understood. A application or game is often a custom job with all sorts of different features and functions. Any decent company should be measuring these things as best they can. It appears that is often isn't done. It's remarkable that EA hasn't been able to do this since they have a bevy of projects that they should be able to use as a rough yard stick.
robryan 16y ago
The analogy fails though because most houses are build in a standardized way, software would have to be pretty much wholly the result of picking and matching preexisting components.
- jonhendry 16y ago
  Houses probably aren't the best comparison. Commercial real estate is probably better, being a larger investment and with more interests pulling in different directions. http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y17/jamesinclair/IMG_6378.jpg http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y17/jamesinclair/IMG_6378.j... A huge hole in the middle of Boston's Downtown Crossing shopping district. The historic Filene's department store building was torn out, to be replaced with a 38 story tower. Funding evaporated. The project stalled in November of 2008.
Aetius 16y ago
The software entity is constantly subject to pressures for change. Of course, so are buildings, cars, computers. But manufactured things are infrequently changed after manufacture; they are superseded by later models, or essential changes are incorporated into copies of the same basic design. Callbacks of automobiles are ready quite infrequent; field changes of computers somewhat less so. Both are much less frequent than modifications to fielded software. In part, this is so because the software of a system embodies its function, and the function is the part that most feels the pressures of change. In part it is because software can be changed more easily--it is pure thought- stuff, infinitely malleable. - Fred Brooks, No Silver Bullet
- billswift 16y ago
  Good essay but I don't think he adequately addressed the problem of transaction costs for changing software, either in process or later updating, of course that wasn't his primary point (it has been a while since I read it and I could be misremembering).
jacoblyles 16y ago
I think you've just described government contracting.
gaius 16y ago
Ahem: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Parliament_Building#Timeline_of_cost_increases http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Parliament_Building#Ti...

cryptoz 16y ago

> you will have some files which can be deleted I sure hope nobody deletes files after stopping work on a project. What a waste. Storage is so incredibly cheap...

megamark16 16y ago
Agreed. Putting files on tape and sending them to Iron Mountain is the new Delete button.

vannevar 16y ago

I agree. There is no field of human endeavor (except war) where you can spend so much and have so little to show for it, as the enterprise software business.