In terms of economics and utility, the last 80% of effort produces 20% of the result. But the last 80% give us something much more that isn’t quantified: The feeling of having completed something of value, and having done it properly, carries an inherent value that surpasses the last 20% output. It is unquantifiable and priceless. This is when work or products become timeless and truly valuable. Not to mention that feeling of satisfaction and completeness of taking an accomplishment to that level.
I'd actually flip it around - in a crowded market the last 80% of work on those 20% features is what makes you stand out.
It's the detail, the little touches, that result in the comparative advantage in the market - not the shared 80% ( most chairs have 4 legs, seat and back - that 80% isn't what you compete on ).
Exactly, the extra effort to complete it is worth it, but it is costly. I think this can be explored in a positive way by selling incomplete things cheaper to the end user while using this money to sustain the development of the last 20%. I think Minecraft is a well known example of applying this model that was fair for both the developers and end users.
While I don't believe Minecraft was the first, it did set the stage for the early access model of development, which fits in great with agile development practices and sustainable practices as the developers can release their vertical slice or MVP, then continue development and correct it based on customer feedback. One example of that is Factorio that has been in development for over a decade now, providing value (enjoyable gameplay) the whole time while also getting continuous development and new features as well as a huge and lively modding community, which in itself translated into their major DLC (based on one of the bigger and more popular mods, they hired the developer and probably a few more people from the modding community).
They're "finished" with it now though, after years of weekly updates they've gone quiet in November. But, they're also working on a new game.
this satisfaction sells. there are companies built on the premise that after the last 1% of effort the sales skyrocket. the marketing narrative of having a complete, high quality product helps to stand out.
> the last 80% give us something much more that isn’t quantified: The feeling of having completed something of value, and having done it properly, carries an inherent value that surpasses the last 20% output. It is unquantifiable and priceless. This is when work or products become timeless and truly valuable. Not to mention that feeling of satisfaction and completeness of taking an accomplishment to that level.
This is why software development _as a job_ sucks, and sucks deeply: how often do you get to put the icing on the cake, and put a ribbon on it, and get a final effort that matches what you were able to envision ?
"Job" satisfaction is for _hobbyist_ software development. Capitalism generates crap software.
I've always looked at this a bit differently. For me the last 20% is fulfilling, but it's also a grind.
In a software job I rarely have to do that to get paid, I can spend most of my days on the easy stuff that gets far enough. The pay is good enough that I can spend my time outside of work doing what I want and put in the effort to grind through the last 20% and really feel proud if the end result.
This may be why so many software developers gravitate to wood working. If you have the time to put in the effort for that last 20% its very noticeable and satisfying.
You'd see a lot more from both sides if the motivations were there. The motivation in safety critical stuff is not killing people. It won't matter if I get a boring CRUD app feature to near perfection, I make the same regardless, and that's true in private companies and government.
I think the safety critical developers maybe have some deep itch to scratch and compensation is way less important to them (otherwise they should be making millions in salary given the stakes), but we don't need to use that bar for every developer or product.
But maybe AI will commoditize all of the old boring CRUD apps and those kinds developers are only worth $20-30/hr.
> and compensation is way less important to them (otherwise they should be making millions in salary given the stakes)
I think I disagree. Doing safety critical does not mean you work 1000x more. Just that you put more care into what you do (you focus on safety vs productivity), have audits and actual processes to ensure quality.
If they actually have resources, the government is capable of good work. But when it is done on the cheap you don’t get the best work. Whether it’s from underfunding the particular agency, or when they have to outsource to private contractors (often by law the lowest bidder). Don’t know how that fits into the capitalist/state-funded matrix.
Because it is funded by a capitalist government does not mean it's not living in a capitalist world... didn't you mix it up with the difference between private and public projects?
For yourself, sure. But likely not for your users. In fact, I would bet Pareto is not extreme enough in this scenario.
E.g. Excel or git, or their potential eventual successors. Former and latter has largely being the same commands and feature set used by 99% of users since V1. They are now old, storied projects with enhancements and features/improvements that go decades long, and even inspired or spun out new products/projects out of the ideas built within.
For the article itself, Pareto exists as a reminder that work expended is rarely if ever equal to results produced. There are instances where it pays off. But you always pay a price. Make sure you're willing to pay that price.
Sometimes a chair with 3 legs is all you need or care for. That 4th leg might give you more balance in an uneven plane, but I work in a decently flat garage and I'm not paying the premium for that 4th leg.
