|The World According to Nick|
|My take on Software, Technology, Politics, and anything else I feel like talking about.|
Monday, August 23, 2004
I've mentioned Virginia Postrel's Dynamist blog as a must read before. Well, this morning I have a bone to pick with Virginia. She's gone and taken a pot shot at my profession. In her post entitled Dilbert vs. The Aesthetic Imperative:
She then goes on to quote from her book saying (which I haven't read... but maybe now I should):
I've mentioned before about writing elegant code. In general, I think it's part of an Engineer's job to combine function and form. In Engineering school, that is one of the stated differences between an Engineer and let's say, a scientist. Engineers put scientific advance to practical use. Part of practical use is making something that is, well, practical to use. The problem that comes into play, which I don't think Virginia takes into account, is the speed at which development occurs. Reading her own blog, one of the great advances she touts often is that the economy today produces with greater efficiency. Product development and manufacturing are occurring at a more rapid pace. This is one of the reasons why our economy is growing well, despite other negative factors, especially compared with European countries that don't produce as efficiently. However, one of the first things that is sacrificed when speed is a concern, is elegance and beauty.
Ask any Engineer who their greatest foe is, and they will say a salesman. This may seem strange. After all, without someone selling what you design, you'd be out of a job. The relationship is definitely a love hate one. And when you have that kind of relationship, you tend to concentrate on the hate part more, it's just human nature. In most engineering firms, you tend to have your ideal development cycle (which you can find referenced and taught at any good school), and you have the real one out in industry. Here is an abbreviated version of a typical industry cycle:
I've worked at two large engineering firms and one medium sized one, and it's worked the same in all three despite my best efforts. At the first large company I worked for, I actually got to be involved in a usability study on our software. It was very rewarding, and we got lots of good ideas to use for the next version. Of course, the next version was subsequently canceled. This leads nicely to the other major issue.
It is very difficult to make those aesthetic changes in a released product. I've been part of teams that have tried to get the upper management nod on those types of projects. The problem is that management types rarely see the financial benefit of a redesign, if you can't roll in other feature upgrades. After all, a product that does the exact same thing as the last version, but looks cooler won't be something salesmen can convince buyers to upgrade to. The problem is that those feature upgrades that you need to include in order to get the project approved will always take precedence over aesthetic and design improvements. That means that the aesthetic and design improvements always get the axe first when it comes time to trim features to meet the schedule.
It's a vicious cycle... one that I don't think Virginia is very aware of. So don't blame the Engineers Virginia. Blame the sales force!
Post a Comment
Home: Wauwatosa, WI, United States
I'm a Software Consultant in the Milwaukee area. Among various geeky pursuits, I'm also an amateur triathlete, and enjoy rock climbing. I also like to think I'm a political pundit.
View My Profile
Previous PostsRocket Scientists Making Shoes
Bullets, Not Boobs
BugMeNot Be Gone
Not Gonna Do It
Book Review: Red Rabbit
The Star Spangled Fizzle
Personal LinksCarnival of the Badger
The Coding Monkey
Blog Critics Reviews
Design By maystar