On Software Development and Layperson's Perceptions
Easy Peasy or Fiendishly Hard?
Since I have been in the “software business” for about two decades it is natural that I project my own knowledge on to any software problem I hear. Yet sometimes I get a glimpse of how this whole “software thing” might look to people who have little or no knowledge at all of software development.
When I recently was complaining about a billing service (of a local sporting association) lacking a very useful and common feature, the reply I got gave me one of these “oh, so that’s what it looks like” moments of insight. “The vendor asked too much money for the feature.”
A few thoughts raced my mind.
- It just can’t be that expensive - this must be a case of sticker shock!
- The system does feel a little home-brewed, maybe it is a bespoke or tailored solution instead of COTS or SaaS?
- In that case the vendor may be trying to cover development costs of a new feature, plus some.
- Then again the feature is pretty basic and could probably be implemented in one day, with time to spare.
But thinking this way is just looking at trees instead of the forest.
It’s not about my views or my estimates. I am not the customer of the vendor. I do not make a decision here. This is a case of information asymmetry between the vendor and their customer. My viewpoint is more symmetric, and thus not valid in this case.
What is the problem, then?
Before going to the main question I have (about the forest), let me first take a look at some trees first.
Estimation is useless! Estimation is valuable!
While software estimation1 itself has been studied for a long time, is it even possible to estimate software development efforts in reality? What is its place in the world of agile and lean development?
I’ve seen people think that agile development has made away with software estimation. It has not. Task sizing, planning poker or even just “guessimating” whether a story will fit a sprint or not are all judgments based on software estimation. Doing estimation by the seat of the pants instead of formally does not make it go away.
Software estimation is also known to go horrendously wrong. I am not going to even link examples, it’s that depressing. […] So which is it?
- Estimating “small” problems can be done with useful reliability and accuracy.2
- Estimating “large” problems is difficult because requirements are not known to sufficient detail.3
My view is that software estimation in itself is not useless and when used in correct context can yield usefully accurate results.
Just think about it yourself — a programmer is making judgments about task complexity and difficulty all the time. If these estimates were completely useless what would that mean? I mean, if you’d estimate a ten-minute task to take five years? You would be bloody useless. And jobless, fast.
Software is easy! Software is hard!
I’ve written previously about the power of being able to write programs. But is software easy? Being able to use programs for automating rote tasks just means that it is incredibly powerful.
Software is not easy or hard. There are hard limits to some problems that come from either the theory of computability or from physical limits, but software in itself is not easy or hard. Learning how to write software may be hard, or it may be easy, but this is as meaningless as saying that learning to draw is easy or hard — some people may have natural affinity, or the drive to learn. If so, learning is apparently easy.
Most of the things we value are difficult and time-consuming to learn. Even if some people make learning look easy.
Learning to do software is hard. So is learning to play violin.
Yet — yet I have often encountered, and I believe to be common that many people think software is easy. “Easy” in the sense that “it cannot take more than a few days” easy. “Easy” in the meaning that “those people at WhizzyCorp got 1M users in two weeks” easy. “Easy” in the suggestion “I can get a random programmer to replace your easy job” easy. Banal, if you may.
Some things that look like magic are actually easy to do in software — now. Some things that are difficult today are easy — in the future. This rapid change may confuse people both ways, both into thinking that something is not possible when it actually has become possible due to a recent development, but also equally well into tricking people thinking that past rapid changes automatically translate into automatically making previously difficult things easy now.
Finally, the forest.
I think that there is a gulf between “laypeople” and “professionals” regarding the difficulty and complexity of software development. This is a point I find difficult to explain even to myself — this train of thought is work in progress. I’ll try my best to articulate this viewpoint in text now.
First, this gulf is not about skills or knowledge. I have absolutely no idea on how to construct an airplane or how much of work it does. Yet someone does.
Someone out there does not have any idea on how much work is to create software for a Mars rover. Well, I don’t, but someone at NASA does.
Unfortunately software development is often bespoke or tailored work. This means there is information asymmetry between customer and vendor. Even when assuming honest and ethical vendors this asymmetry persists.4
So when a software professional gives an estimate — making the assumption that it is a reasonably accurate estimate given the constraints I outlined above — what is a layperson e.g. the customer to do with this estimate? There are four possibilities (SWOT anyone?) between professional’s estimate and customer’s expectations:
- Both match and are correct: nice
- Estimate is correct and expectations are incorrect: customer is happily surprised (estimate is lower) or … put into a bind (estimate is higher)
- Estimate is incorrect and expectations are correct: oh woe is me5
- Both are incorrect: run, don’t look back, just run
Finally, the question:
Why and how do layperson expectations and professional estimates differ?
That’s it. That’s the forest.
It’s not that professionals’ estimates are incorrect. If estimates are used in a valid context then they are likely to be reliable and useful.6
It’s not that laypeople’s estimates are incorrect, either. They most likely are incorrect for the exactly same reasons that any random person’s estimates for Mars rover software or airplane construction work are incorrect. Vendor estimates and customer expectations are very likely to differ. Assuming they would match is not a sensible default.
How they are going to differ? My own experience is that they are more likely to be underestimates than overestimates. Yet I don’t consider the quantitative difference as important as the qualitative:
Why? I don’t know. I tried looking into research into software estimation.7 I found papers on estimation techniques, their validity and accuracy, comparisons between them and so on, but I did not find anything that would consider the psychological or sociological reasons why people (especially professionals and non-professionals) would or could take different viewpoints or stands on software complexity or effort estimation.
I have no answers here, only questions.
I think that looking into the why could potentially help a lot in the software industry’s interaction with customers. I think that the software industry or academia is not looking enough (if at all) into the human side — sociology and psychology — of interactions between humans in software professions and humans in other professions.
Why are customer requirements misunderstood? What are the warning signs in human communication or behavior?
Why customers think they have clear requirements when they are not clear? What is an effective way to communicate the inadequacy of requirements?
And so on. Consider research into group-think, for example (Bay of Pigs decision-making is a famous example). This is not computer science, not computing science, not software engineering. It is cross-department stuff. Not very popular in CS, I know8.
The Big Conclusion
Nope, there is none.
I wrote this blog post because I got a rare glimpse into non-software-person thinking, got thinking, and found out questions I found no answers for.
Meaning useful in the context of software development project. It is not uncommon to go 3x or 10x way off in estimation of tasks in a scrum sprint, for example. However agile methods have feedback processes meant to keep this deviation from ballooning uncontrollably. In this context estimations do provide metrics useful to guide development projects. ↩
This is the crux of agile methods. While a waterfall software project could theoretically be estimated accurately given that requirements are known in advance, in practice nobody knows the requirements in advance (even when they think they do). Agile methods start with the assumption that requirements will change. ↩
Dishonest and unethical vendors may use the asymmetry to their own advantage. Yet information asymmetry can cause problems even for honest and ethical vendors and their customers. ↩
If the vendor estimate is higher, then they will not get the job and it’s their loss. If vendor’s estimate is lower, they will get the job but there will be hell later when the either the customer ends up paying more than they expect, or the vendor will go negative profit on the project. ↩
Likely, likely, likely. Never 100%. ↩
I have to admit I did not do a thorough literary search. Just random searches on scholar, ieexplore, university library search portal and the like. ↩
blog comments powered by Disqus