Phrases that make me think of assembly-line software construction: Design process: "it's about the result of the process of designing for something that isn't

Phrases that make me think of assembly-line software construction: Design process: "it's about the result of the process of designing for something that isn't a final composition but rather an ongoing process." Process standardization: "It doesn't matter whether someone is a brilliant designer. What matters is that the de-facto way most work is creating friction" Process philosophy: "but rather a process philosophy if you like. And for something very specific namely app design" Process optimization: "It's such a bloated process, full of wasted energy. It might work for selling billboards but it certainly doesn't work for building software." To be clear I don't disagree with any of these statements. But they trigger my PTSD flashbacks of Deming and TQM. Additionally, if this friction is such an up-front one-time event early in the life of a new product, how important is it really to software development? How often does your development shop experience this friction really? The article is arguing against the entire business model and workflow of these agencies: ...most of it comes from traditional marketing and design. It's an approach that's worked for creative agencies: magazines, TV advertisements, advertising campaigns – all these things are planned meticulously up front. In some cases, it's necessary – after all, it's harder to change an advertisement that's aired, or a magazine that's been printed then it is to change software...When dealing with traditional creative agencies it’s a well known fact that designs will not go back once they are pronounced final because they are too expensive to re-engage. What he's advocating for is a change in the contract terms for their creative industries. So phrasing the solution in terms of "NoPSD movement" makes for good blog, but even as a metaphor for asset workflow it just totally understates the fundamental-ness of what he's asking. It's as if we were going to reign in unrecognized cyclic dependencies on Wall Street in the from of credit-default swaps by advocating a "NoXLS movement". Of course this is largely innocuous in the grand sceme of things. But the danger lies in Dilbert's manager thinking himself cutting-edge by decreeing "OK team, from this day forward nobody uses Photoshop".