6 ms·

This is a great point. Because software has near-zero replication costs, the "manufacturing" process has no good analog for software industry. The manufacturin

This is a great point. Because software has near-zero replication costs, the "manufacturing" process has no good analog for software industry. The manufacturing industry is supported by an army of engineers in a wide variety of specialties. In fact, manufacturing, in some ways, is starting to look a little more similar to software, because the non-material costs of production are falling (automation replaces direct labor) so replication costs are falling. Manufacturing will never look exactly like software due to the intrinsic role of raw material costs and the capital costs of production equipment, but there are increasing similarities. As manufacturing has become more automated, a greater emphasis is placed on the role of engineer: in an automated factory, there is greater need for skilled engineers and lesser need for direct operating labor. While better software has also helped these engineers become more productive, the net effect has been to improve quality of engineering output rather than to reduce engineering demand. (The exception is people working with engineers, but at a lower skill level. For example, there is little need for draftspeople.) Examples of this improved engineering output are flow simulation software that allows engineers to better push the envelope in part design to reduce part weight and improve production cycle times. The net lesson from manufacturing engineering is that software engineers will continue to be in demand -- likely even higher demand -- so long as they continue to evolve their skills to use the more powerful software as it becomes available. The more powerful software will lessen the cost of software, which will increase demand for it, and increase demand for the skilled developer. For example, abstraction platforms such as Rails increased demand for those who evolved their skill set, because cost of web development fell due to higher productivity, thereby increasing demand for it. However, like a draftsperson or an engineer who refuses to learn Solidworks, the more powerful software will be a negative for those who cannot, or choose not to, evolve their skill set above a more basic level.

bsg75 13y ago
Because software has near-zero replication costs, the "manufacturing" process has no good analog for software industry. I wonder how many "business people" have a hard time understanding this concept, resulting in the typical shortsightedness that results in Build It Cheap And Fix It Later, where "later" almost never finds its time.
- tracker1 13y ago
  Yet they wonder why rewrites are fairly common in vNext implementations...
damoncali 13y ago
However, like a draftsperson or an engineer who refuses to learn Solidworks, the more powerful software will be a negative for those who cannot, or choose not to, evolve their skill set above a more basic level. That line jogged loose a memory that might cause some thought in other so I'll share: I used be an aerospace engineer. Typically, what we called * designers* were technical people who were very good at working with fancy 3D parametric, version controlled CAD systems. They could come up with mechanical designs and drawings at a rapid pace and good results. They rarely had engineering degrees and leaned a bit on the technical knowledge of the engineers when they needed to. But we had one guy who refused to learn the new systems and instead insisted on using old, some might say obsolete) 2D CAD that he was familiar with. He happend to have an engineering degree, but most wouldn't guess because 9 out of 10 people picked him out as a dead ringer for Charlie Manson. He was loud, sometimes dirty, dressed more like a biker than an engineer, and he was rude and stubborn. I liked the guy. I really did. But I think I held a rare view, as most people found him offensive and crude. Some refused to work with him. "I'm not changing that" was almost a calling card of his. Yet in spite of all of that, he designed a frighteningly high percentage of the space hardware that actually flew. His time was in demand and he produced easily as much as the designers with more modern tools. I never counted, but I'd bet he produced more than they did. And it was good because he was brilliantly skilled at the real task at hand. So in the end, the technology did not matter - the man did. I don't bring that up to argue- just think there's something worth thinking about.
- Falling3 13y ago
  But doesn't it stand to reason that if he'd been just a little more personable and just a little less resistant to change, he could have done even better?
  - randallsquared 13y ago
    Not necessarily. We don't know if what made him so incredibly productive sprung from those same qualities. In fact, refusing to learn new processes when the old ones still worked might have aided him in gaining expertise.
  - 13y ago

bsg75 13y ago

Because software has near-zero replication costs, the "manufacturing" process has no good analog for software industry. I wonder how many "business people" have a hard time understanding this concept, resulting in the typical shortsightedness that results in Build It Cheap And Fix It Later, where "later" almost never finds its time.

tracker1 13y ago
Yet they wonder why rewrites are fairly common in vNext implementations...

damoncali 13y ago

However, like a draftsperson or an engineer who refuses to learn Solidworks, the more powerful software will be a negative for those who cannot, or choose not to, evolve their skill set above a more basic level. That line jogged loose a memory that might cause some thought in other so I'll share: I used be an aerospace engineer. Typically, what we called * designers* were technical people who were very good at working with fancy 3D parametric, version controlled CAD systems. They could come up with mechanical designs and drawings at a rapid pace and good results. They rarely had engineering degrees and leaned a bit on the technical knowledge of the engineers when they needed to. But we had one guy who refused to learn the new systems and instead insisted on using old, some might say obsolete) 2D CAD that he was familiar with. He happend to have an engineering degree, but most wouldn't guess because 9 out of 10 people picked him out as a dead ringer for Charlie Manson. He was loud, sometimes dirty, dressed more like a biker than an engineer, and he was rude and stubborn. I liked the guy. I really did. But I think I held a rare view, as most people found him offensive and crude. Some refused to work with him. "I'm not changing that" was almost a calling card of his. Yet in spite of all of that, he designed a frighteningly high percentage of the space hardware that actually flew. His time was in demand and he produced easily as much as the designers with more modern tools. I never counted, but I'd bet he produced more than they did. And it was good because he was brilliantly skilled at the real task at hand. So in the end, the technology did not matter - the man did. I don't bring that up to argue- just think there's something worth thinking about.

Falling3 13y ago
But doesn't it stand to reason that if he'd been just a little more personable and just a little less resistant to change, he could have done even better?
- randallsquared 13y ago
  Not necessarily. We don't know if what made him so incredibly productive sprung from those same qualities. In fact, refusing to learn new processes when the old ones still worked might have aided him in gaining expertise.
- 13y ago