5 ms·
I agree with this but I think at least part of the problem is that we don't have good tools for specifying precisely what it is we intend to build. If we could
by cageface 12y ago
I agree with this but I think at least part of the problem is that we don't have good tools for specifying precisely what it is we intend to build. If we could create software plans as detailed and exacting as blueprints for a new building we'd have far fewer failures. Instead we toss together a few wireframes and start hacking and by the time we're done the final product is nothing like what we were originally tasked to build.
As far as I can tell this just isn't the case in any other field of "engineering".
- markbnj 12y agoPerhaps, but how useful are those detailed plans and blueprints to the actual consumer of the construction service? They get studied, sure, but I think the customer is still working at the level of features and their expression in the plan, not the plans themselves which are more of an internal tool for the architect and builders. It's true that we lack widely accepted formalized design tools like blueprints, but at the same time it's interesting to note that one of the recognized problems with extensive planning and design documentation in software is that it can't keep up with evolving requirements :). So again, we can't plan because the customer has been taught to think everything is open for discussion at all times.
- cageface 12y agoI agree that client requirement sculpting is a major issue. But I think if we could give them something like the kind of detailed 3d walkthrough that's possible now in architecture, for example, we could possibly also get them to agree that no significant changes will be made once they've signed off on the plan. I have no idea how this could actually be done though. So many of the implementation details are opaque to any non-technical client.