
Why It Is Important That Software Projects Fail (2008) - perfunctory
http://www.berglas.org/Articles/ImportantThatSoftwareFails/ImportantThatSoftwareFails.html
======
erikpukinskis
> As the primary net effect of software is to facilitate bureaucratic
> complexity it is therefor essential that software projects fail

I love this conceptualization of what software is for. But I have the complete
opposite moral interpretation.

Unstated is the presumption that bureaucratic complexity is bad. I think
increasing it is the goal of society, and ethics constantly demand us to
increase it.

For example, it’s easy for banks to simply reject loan applicants who were
convicted of felonies. There’s no easy upside: given existing loan approval
and repayment processes there’s no clear way to give those loans profitably.

There is a huge social cost to that group lacking access to credit though. It
increases crime and violence.

And there is probably a long term financial cost too: some felons will
reliably make their payments. And still more COULD reliably make payments with
the right support.

So how does a bank separate out those groups and provide that support?

Increase bureaucratic complexity!

I am not necessarily in favor of locating that complexity in a state
government. As an anarchist I would want to locate it as close to the affected
community as possible....

But to me the dream of software is nearly infinite bureaucratic complexity
that affords all of us greater freedom, and health.

~~~
notduncansmith
I would love to know (not sarcastically) your definition of anarchy that is
compatible with bureaucracy - the two seem at odds.

~~~
LogicWolfe
A good discussion of the different ways in which this term is applied can be
found here: [http://theconversation.com/what-is-anarchism-all-
about-50373](http://theconversation.com/what-is-anarchism-all-about-50373).

To quote a relevant passage: "Anarchism is a process whereby authority and
domination is being replaced with non-hierarchical, horizontal structures,
with voluntary associations between human beings."

If bureaucratic complexity is the complexity of the structures that organize
our society, its existence is entirely consistent with an anarchist society.
The structures would no longer be hierarchal, but anarchism makes no claim
that organization (or the complexity associated with it) shouldn't exist.

------
danohuiginn
Some beautiful synchronicity going on with the headlines here:
[https://ohuiginn.net/tmp/hn_inventors.png](https://ohuiginn.net/tmp/hn_inventors.png)

------
gridlockd
> "When engineers set out to build a bridge a bridge gets built"

Not necessarily. The main difference here is that most bridge projects are not
private investments and so cost overruns are less likely to cause complete
failure, but the cost overruns can still be massive:

[https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/05/03/letter-bay-bridge-
cos...](https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/05/03/letter-bay-bridge-cost-overrun-
same-ratio-as-bostons-big-dig/)

------
dang
A thread from 2009:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=932956](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=932956)

------
mushufasa
I think this is hilarious, but probably not going to continue to be true. Yes,
a lot of software products fail, but automation is increasingly driving
capital growth and replacing labor. The p2p gig economy does cut out a lot of
bureaucracy, and AI advances... both of which were hard to predict in '08.

The article he cited, Parkinson 1955 (originally in the Economist), on the
relationship of british naval bureaucracy to work, is even more interesting
imo!
[http://www.berglas.org/Articles/parkinsons_law.pdf](http://www.berglas.org/Articles/parkinsons_law.pdf)
. It hypothesizes a growth equation for bureaucracy where the only exogenous
factor is the underlying population. I'd be curious whether more rigorous
research says anything about bureaucratic growth, as we're stretching further
towards an era where minimal % of the population has to do any 'blue collar'
labor. Maybe in the field of institutional economics?

~~~
Supermancho
> It hypothesizes a growth equation for bureaucracy where the only exogenous
> factor is the underlying population

Having observed additional layers of bureaucracy develop over time, I have
noticed the additional factor of attempting to get blood from a stone. When a
the critical metric (eg revenue growth) falls, a perverse incentive of
increasing control is pursued after some short gains. Following the pereto
curve, this too is less effective over time.

~~~
marmaduke
> attempting to get blood from a stone

This is an excellent expression. I have observed this sort of thing as well,
especially with regards to deadlines that get pushed back.

------
joe_the_user
Quite an interesting article which at least verges on parody.

The thing about the automation of bureaucracy is that what it being produced
doesn't a value but rather has a "redistribution effect", so more tax codes
produce at best a more fine-tuned rearrangement of wealth according to the
ideas of legislators. So increased productivity is meaningless.

One thing I'd add is that there areas that produce useful items but where the
insertion of automation has helped much either - health care is an example I
find interesting. And certainly there are places where computer-based large-
scale automation has resulted in serious increases in productivity (I believe
rail roads had this in the 1990s).

So question of where automation tends to fail and where it tends to succeed is
a bit open - but it seems like "organizing complex, interlocked human
interactions" is one place where failure is common.

------
tempodox
> If an engineer were to deliberately under specify a load bearing beam in
> order to cut costs, they would be sent to jail. But when a programmer cuts a
> corner they get promoted.

In the absence of other hard limits, project failure is the only reality check
on software development. Without that, we'd all live in Cockaigne, fried
chickens flying into our mouths.

