Systems Thinking
theprogrammersparadox.blogspot.com
Systems Thinking
1–10 of 123 posts
Re: Systems Thinking
#2A major factor supporting evolution over big up-front design is the drift in system requirements over time. Even on large military like projects, apparently there's "discovery"--and the more years that pass, the more requirements change.
Re: Systems Thinking
#3“A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that worked. The inverse proposition also appears to be true: A complex system designed from scratch never works and cannot be made to work. You have to start over, beginning with a working simple system.”
Gall’s Law
Re: Systems Thinking
#4“A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that worked. The inverse proposition also appears to be true: A complex system designed from scratch never works and cannot be made to work. You have to start over, beginning with a working simple system.” Gall’s Law
So true.
Re: Systems Thinking
#5“A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that worked. The inverse proposition also appears to be true: A complex system designed from scratch never works and cannot be made to work. You have to start over, beginning with a working simple system.” Gall’s Law
Ah, the Second System Effect, and the lesson learned from it.
Re: Systems Thinking
#6Software cannot be built like skyscrapers because the sponsors know about the malleability of the medium and treat it like a lump of clay that by adding water can be shaped to something else.
Re: Systems Thinking
#7The Evolution method outlined also seems born from the Continuous Delivery paradigm that was required for subscription business models. I would argue Engineering is the superior approach as the Lean/Agile methods of production were born from physical engineering projects whose end result was complete. Evolution seems to be even more chaotic because an improper paradigm of 'dev ops' was used instead of organically emerged as one would expect with an evolving method.
Ai assistance would seem to favor the engineering approach as the friction of teams and personalities is reduced in favor of quick feasibility testing and complete planning.
Re: Systems Thinking
#8Software cannot be built like skyscrapers because the sponsors know about the malleability of the medium and treat it like a lump of clay that by adding water can be shaped to something else.
You're mixing up design and manufacturing. A skyscraper is first completely designed (on paper, cad systems, prototypes), before it is manufactured. In software engineering, coding is often more a design phase than a manufacturing phase.
Designers need malleability, that is why they all want digital design systems.
Re: Systems Thinking
#9Software cannot be built like skyscrapers because the sponsors know about the malleability of the medium and treat it like a lump of clay that by adding water can be shaped to something else.
But software is in fact not very malleable at all. It's true the medium supports change, it's just a bunch of bits, but change is actually hard and expensive, perhaps more than other mediums.
Re: Systems Thinking
#10A major factor supporting evolution over big up-front design is the drift in system requirements over time. Even on large military like projects, apparently there's "discovery"--and the more years that pass, the more requirements change.
Even if the requirements are indeed fixed your understanding of the problem domain evolves.