
Why it is Important that Software Projects Fail - fogus
http://www.berglas.org/Articles/ImportantThatSoftwareFails/ImportantThatSoftwareFails.html
======
conanite
The author argues that failed software projects are nonetheless beneficial:

 _Their development employs many bureaucrats, consultants and contractors and
their expenditure supports an even larger number of people throughout
society._

... by the same argument I should stroll around the city and burn some cars,
thereby offering employment to many firefighters, car producers, actuaries and
all their suppliers.

The point about ever-expanding bureaucracies is well noted however. Perhaps it
is our duty to design really bad programming languages and methodologies, to
sell them to government organisations and similar bureaucracies in order to
drive their likelihood of success even lower. Reminds me of the true purpose
of Ada ...
[http://home.pipeline.com/~hbaker1/sigplannotices/gigo-1997-0...](http://home.pipeline.com/~hbaker1/sigplannotices/gigo-1997-04.html)

~~~
jerf
Yes, but let's be fair, this is an incidental parenthetical to the main point,
which is that the true value of these failed projects comes from the fact that
the projects never increase the efficiency of the bureaucracy. If you simply
cut that paragraph the essay is, if anything, improved, demonstrating it's not
a critical point.

~~~
conanite
I agree, the point about employment was nitpicking. I should have made that
clearer. I liked the essay overall.

------
fab13n
Automation frees people from doing something productive, not from working. If
we (as a society) leave them alone, they'll just clutter around their formally
useful job, and become banking middle manager or something similar, which
moves a lot of paperwork around, but produce little actual value.

This is similar to what we experienced in Europe with nobles: the end of
feodal times made noblemen mostly useless as warriors or local mobsters; since
they had nothing useful to do with their free time, they became passionate
with court intrigues, ballroom dancing, fancy wigs, duels, and other
improductive occupations.

However, it's been fixed: after centuries of wasted potential, capitalism
created a draft toward productive activities, and the dominant classes worked
at organizing the workforce, eventually leading to the industrial revolution.

We have (again, as a society) to find a way to make today's socially useful
activities attractive: most people will concede that an eldery care person is
way more useful than many middle managers; yet the latters get more money and
social recognition. I suspect that such issues aren't fixed spontaneously by
the so-called "invisible hand of market".

~~~
moron4hire
Humans tend to assume that their experiences are normative, and are surprised
to see instances where their experiences are not shared. As a personal
example, my friends are usually significantly shocked to learn I haven't seen
the movie "The Boondock Saints". Yet they think nothing of the fact that they
haven't seen Salvador Dali's "Un Chien Andalou", which I have. Our values are
informed by our experiences, so we also tend to assume our values are shared
by others.

Assuming one's values are normative leads to assuming that the fact they
aren't reflected in the world must be the result of some external entity, a
secret society, or this nebulous "the system". Instead, if one assumes that
one's views aren't normative, then it is clear why one's views are not
reflected in the world in aggregate: it's a simple tautology. Occam's Razor
applies.

"The system" is not an entity unto itself, it is intractable from the people
within it, it is _nothing more_ than the people within it. The "invisible hand
of the market" is merely a short-hand, anthropomorphizing term for "the
aggregate activity of the people within the poorly defined borders of 'the
market'." If something isn't a particular way, it's because "most people"
demonstrably do NOT concede your point, or if they do, do not assign such
great importance to it as to warrant change.

I don't like that elderly care personnel are paid less than middle managers
either, but I'm not suggesting to force everyone else to make that valuation.
When you say, "we as a society have to find a way...", and if you are
suggesting that way be via government intervention, then really you're saying,
"I want to force everyone else in society to pay for my way..." (undemocratic,
even totalitarian). Then we have to write a new tax code to pay for it, and we
get this situation here in the OP. If instead you are suggesting that you will
live by example and proselytize to your fellow man to do the same, then really
you're using "the invisible hand of the market" to enact the change you
desire.

~~~
camccann
As an aside: it's not uncommon for groups of people to say they value one
thing but, in their aggregate behavior, act as if they value other things
instead. This is particularly blatant where moral obligations are involved.

 _If instead you are suggesting that you will live by example and proselytize
to your fellow man to do the same, then really you're using "the invisible
hand of the market" to enact the change you desire._

It sounded to me like his point was more that it doesn't work to just sit
around waiting for the "invisible hand", i.e., someone else, to fix a problem
like that. Someone has to get up and actually _do_ something and persuade
people.

~~~
moron4hire
Correct. There are any number of things that a person can _do_. The problem
is, what are things that one can do that are effective, as well as avoiding
trampling on other liberties in the process? The "use government" route is
fraught with moral hazard and unintended consequences.

~~~
fab13n
> The "use government" route is fraught with moral hazard and unintended
> consequences.

Actually, "use government" to fight pointless bureaucracy sounds at best as a
joke.

------
yummyfajitas
While bridge building may always be successful (as asserted by the author),
close to budget really depends on how you define "close".

Fixed link projects (bridges and tunnels) tend to cost 33% more than estimated
(sigma=60%). Rail is even worse at 44% more than estimated, coming in under
budget only about 12% of the time.

<http://flyvbjerg.plan.aau.dk/JAPAASPUBLISHED.pdf>

~~~
ebrenes
And even if successful (in that the bridge does not immediately collapse),
many bridges have been rendered inoperable due to misuse or neglect.

Anyways, other interesting links on the subject:
[http://blogs.msdn.com/dave_froslie/archive/2005/03/07/389113...](http://blogs.msdn.com/dave_froslie/archive/2005/03/07/389113.aspx)

[http://blogs.msdn.com/steverowe/archive/2005/02/28/381910.as...](http://blogs.msdn.com/steverowe/archive/2005/02/28/381910.aspx)

------
mmt
_Hard working couples struggle to buy the basic food and shelter which their
grandfathers had purchased while their wives stayed at home._

Is this an example of truth through mere assertion, or of pluralizing anecdote
to equal data?

In any case, I disagree with the assertion, because I think it's a stretch
that such a couple would consider what was "basic" in 1955 to be acceptable.
It's tough, though, since quality of life is so, well, qualitative.

Another aspect I question about the mid-50s is how war surplus affected cost
of goods. How many of those single income households were buying goods that
had been subsidized by their wives' work for the war effort? There are strong
hints of this effect in early computer power supplies, as 400Hz wasn't
historically common in commercial power.

------
rauljara
If I'm following the author, increased efficiency (successful software
projects) leads to increased time on the hands of bureaucrats. Increased time
leads to increased meaningless tasks. So, the author's solution is not to find
something meaningful for people to do with the time, or to simply give people
more time off work (because according to the 2 references he cites, that would
be impossible), but to celebrate the destruction of efficiency (failed
software projects).

There are many things wrong with the way our society rewards work/ constructs
bureaucracies. I think, however, that it wouldn't be too hard to come up with
some practical solutions rather than encourage subconscious intentional
failure.

~~~
forensic
>I think, however, that it wouldn't be too hard to come up with some practical
solutions rather than encourage subconscious intentional failure.

Your hubris knows no limits!

------
scotty79
That kinda reminds me how when you upgrade hardware for your webapp new
features quickly crawl in that utilise the hardware. They might not be needed
but they become possible so they come into existence.

To reduce amount of bureaucracy you'd have to pick some work-consuming area of
the operation, make it obsolete by government act and fire all the people that
were doing that work so they will not be available for other tasks inflating
them.

To avoid their complaints you should still pay them salaries for few years but
allow and encourage them to find themselves another job outside government
sector.

~~~
Freebytes
This also happens when you upgrade to a new version of a programming language
or operating system. You start to use features that previously did not exist
or restructure your code to utilize such features. However, many times this is
a great benefit to help with the readability of the code. I have done this
myself with hardware and software.

------
grosales
Wasn't Fred Brooks who said something along the lines of "always build one to
throw away"? Even though, this is not supposed to be a satire (or is it?) ,
the fact that software engineering is a very young subject needs to be taken
into consideration. On the other hand, We need failed software projects to
know what not to do.

------
ams6110
On an everyday level, this reminds me of an observation made by one of
Crichton's characters (I think it was the mathematician in Jurassic Park) that
despite all the appliances and conveniences of modern technology, housekeeping
still takes the same number of hours a week as it always has.

------
dennisgorelik
That's a very strong Libertarian case. Government spending must be cut very
significantly.

~~~
sethg
It seems to me that the problem the OP describes is not confined to
governments.

If some layer or department of a large company's bureaucracy is consuming
about 1.5% of its revenues (just as the Australian tax office consumes about
1.5% of Australia's GDP), then the upper management will never have much
interest in driving that proportion down to 0.5%. So as the company grows,
that layer or department will grow as well in spite of automation, just as the
tax office has grown.

~~~
camccann
If anything, the article could be taken to show that _any_ large organization
is inherently destructive to efficiency and should be cut down for the good of
society.

