81–90 of 127 posts
If I had around 8-12 weeks to live and have a project that is 5% complete what would the right allocation of resources be?
The Pareto principle is useless if considering just a specific predetermined goal in isolation. If I want to climb to the top of a mountain, I have to climb 100 % of the height. Then it makes no practical difference, when I know that I can reach 80% of the height in 20% of the time, for example. However, the Pareto principle encourages us to (re)evaluate a goal in the light of limited resources. Is it better to be satisfied with only climbing 80% of the height of the mountain and use the time saved for other activities that I would otherwise miss out on? The answer to this question depends on other more general goals that I am pursuing.
Applied to software development, this tells us that we should consider for example implementing certain features or striving for a certain level of quality not as goals in themselves, but as framed by more fundamental goals. It is therefore no wonder that given the same code base, the immediate goals what to do next can differ greatly depending on what the fundamental goals are, such as earning money vs. having fun vs. taking pride in, etc. (they may align by coincidence, though). The Pareto principle helps us to (re)evaluate and compare immediate goals in the light of such fundamental goals: Is it better to implement feature A completely and dispense with feature B, or is it better to implement a simplified feature A´ and have room for a simplified feature B´ in the same timeframe (in this example the limiting resource)? Here, the fundamental goal is implicit in the utility function indicated by the word "better", in our example better according to earning money vs. better according to having fun vs. better according to taking pride in, etc.
Of course, considering the Pareto principle when (re)evaluating immediate goals does not gurantee to arrive at the best conclusion. And there are additional considerations outside the Pareto principle, such as short-term goals competing with long-term goals under the same fundamental goals, or legal obligations that are non-negotiable. Here, we enter the sphere of policies, where the policy makers decide upon regulations beyond the individual fundamental goals. In practice we have a hierarchy of multiple goals. On each hierarchy level the Pareto principle is still worth considering as long as there are conflicting goals and limited resources.
To recapitulate: The Pareto principle can only be applied meaningfully when evaluating certain alternative goals according to a given utility function for one or more specific limited resources.
First 20% of effort will finish 80% of the work. Second 20% effort will finish 16% of the 20% left.Totally 96% will be finished.
My PM did not take the correct lesson away from the encounter.
While I appreciate that the author put in the time and effort to write this, I have to say that I disagree with pretty much all of this. Beyond quibbling about specific points, the MVP and the Vertical Slice are functionally similar they totally different in their purpose. Video Games are generally competing for a slice of a large preexisting market. The test is whether it can compete against existing products. A new…
To quibble a bit, I don’t think that magic leap one released as complete products. Magic leap had like a 30 degree FOV and no software. It was a dev kit, literally. The consumer version was never released IIRC Also, I don’t think you argued against the main thesis which is something like “startup land is too good at the first 80% of a product, but not the latter 20%” That rings true for me. Our industry is not known…
So they released both a vertical slice and a horizontal slice then.
> I think that the Pareto Principle is technically true in a lot of fields, but I also feel our society would be a lot better off if we didn’t know about it. I doubt that. From what I understand Vilfredo Pareto introduced it to describe the existing allocation of wealth in Italy on the brink of fascism. He claimed that the crops in his garden followed this principle. I highly doubt that that can be replicated. Ever s…
Hum? There's pretty much a mathematical rule that states that variables free to have any values tend to distribute themselves like that, just like the one that states that variables that are bounded tend to distribute themselves normally. Or are you talking about the specific numbers? Because yes, the specific numbers are almost never correct.
Software that is critical is not build like that. Medical device control software is not build like that, drone flight control is not build like that, power plant safety is not build like that. The problem that I noticed in the recent years is: People see the fast dev cycles for non critical software and think they can replicate it in areas where it really does not fit. I guess that’s how we ended up with Teslas self…
I always wonder where the devs come from who end up doing important work. Seniority doesn't mean anything if a dev's 20 years has been spent flinging crap over the wall and then wondering how to keep up with all the support tickets being filed. How does one get onto the "software is suppose to work" career track.
While I appreciate that the author put in the time and effort to write this, I have to say that I disagree with pretty much all of this. Beyond quibbling about specific points, the MVP and the Vertical Slice are functionally similar they totally different in their purpose. Video Games are generally competing for a slice of a large preexisting market. The test is whether it can compete against existing products. A new…
To quibble a bit, I don’t think that magic leap one released as complete products. Magic leap had like a 30 degree FOV and no software. It was a dev kit, literally. The consumer version was never released IIRC Also, I don’t think you argued against the main thesis which is something like “startup land is too good at the first 80% of a product, but not the latter 20%” That rings true for me. Our industry is not known…
[1] For example, the liquid metal fast breeder reaxctor https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/publications/magazi...
[2] https://kguttag.com/ tells you just how hard it is
[3] Apple Vision Pro is a refined if overly expensive product that takes a different approach to the same end and consumers were indifferent
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
> Capitalism generates crap software. As opposed to state-funded software development, which is renowed for its high quality and innovation.