3 ms·

there is also this gold nugget from Steve jobs (there is no date, late 80s ?): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4dCJJFuMsE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4dCJ

there is also this gold nugget from Steve jobs (there is no date, late 80s ?): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4dCJJFuMsE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4dCJJFuMsE >"Companies get confused. When they start getting bigger, they wanna replicate their initial success, and a lot of them think somehow there is some magic in the process of how that success was created. So they try to institutionalize process accross the company, and before very long, people get very confused that the process is the content. And that's ultimately the downfall of IBM : IBM has the best process people in the world, they just forgot about the content." [...] >"In my career, I found that the best people are the ones really understanding the content, and they are a pain in the butt to manage, but you put up with it bc they are so great at the content. And that's what makes great product : it's not process, it's content."

rvense 5y ago
> no date I think this is from an interview made for the documentary Triumph of the Nerds, so 1995. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDqQcmVqAm4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDqQcmVqAm4
ignoramous 5y ago
Very similar to what I read recently: > ...the question of repeatable processes versus the flash of brilliance. > In many cases, there isn't much of a compromise between the two. A really great novel is never written using a repeatable process (although pretty good mass-produced junk fiction can be and is). Meanwhile, a widget factory runs on repeatable processes, and doesn't require much brilliance once it gets going. (Hopefully there was some brilliance in the original widget design.) > ...the never-ending conflict between "Software Engineering" and "Computer Science." Software Engineering claims that software can be created faster, better, and more reliably if you can just define repeatable processes and hire a bunch of code monkeys to implement those processes. For some things, like banking applications and warehouse management software, it works: well, at least it works better than trying to do the same thing without your repeatable processes. Computer Science, on the other hand, is all about the flashes of brilliance and the "aha!" moments. > ... > Unfortunately, it seems that two totally different social structures are needed to produce repeatability versus brilliant insight. A structure that encourages repeatability will stifle creative insight; but a structure that encourages creativity produces non-repeatable results, almost by definition. > ...I do know the form of the solution: you want a process that repeatably produces brilliant results. If you could do that, you would be unstoppable.* More compromises (2006), https://archive.is/EEMxl https://archive.is/EEMxl | https://apenwarr.ca/log/20060210 https://apenwarr.ca/log/20060210

rvense 5y ago

> no date I think this is from an interview made for the documentary Triumph of the Nerds, so 1995. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDqQcmVqAm4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDqQcmVqAm4

ignoramous 5y ago

Very similar to what I read recently: > ...the question of repeatable processes versus the flash of brilliance. > In many cases, there isn't much of a compromise between the two. A really great novel is never written using a repeatable process (although pretty good mass-produced junk fiction can be and is). Meanwhile, a widget factory runs on repeatable processes, and doesn't require much brilliance once it gets going. (Hopefully there was some brilliance in the original widget design.) > ...the never-ending conflict between "Software Engineering" and "Computer Science." Software Engineering claims that software can be created faster, better, and more reliably if you can just define repeatable processes and hire a bunch of code monkeys to implement those processes. For some things, like banking applications and warehouse management software, it works: well, at least it works better than trying to do the same thing without your repeatable processes. Computer Science, on the other hand, is all about the flashes of brilliance and the "aha!" moments. > ... > Unfortunately, it seems that two totally different social structures are needed to produce repeatability versus brilliant insight. A structure that encourages repeatability will stifle creative insight; but a structure that encourages creativity produces non-repeatable results, almost by definition. > ...I do know the form of the solution: you want a process that repeatably produces brilliant results. If you could do that, you would be unstoppable.* More compromises (2006), https://archive.is/EEMxl https://archive.is/EEMxl | https://apenwarr.ca/log/20060210 https://apenwarr.ca/log/20060210