Re: So let's build a router

From: Kurt (kurbylogic_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 09/29/04 

Date: 29 Sep 2004 14:15:45 -0700

Cristiano Sadun <cristianoTAKEsadun@THIShotmailOUT.com> wrote in message news:<Xns95738F8CFD03FSadun@212.45.188.38>...
> kurbylogic@hotmail.com (Kurt) wrote in
> news:275dd576.0409240846.8f41310@posting.google.com:
>
> >> Are you guys questioning that the "software crisis" exists?
> >
> > I would agree a sizable percentage of projects are not completed, many
> > do not even start or are cancelled at the first sign of an unexpected
> > or potentially overwellming challenges.
>
> This _is_ the 'software crisis'. Not a term I've made up myself, alas..
> would be richer otherwise. ;)

My point was that every idea will require some time and energy to
determine if it is cost effective, or even feasible. Billions are
invested in research & development, such as with medication, without
knowing if the idea will ever pan out. For example, XYZ med company
might be trying an out an idea to find a cure for aids. The idea
might be that animal x has natural imunity and we think we might be
able to recreate this immunity in humans, the goal is find a cure for
aids. We cannot at the start of the project say that this idea will
be successful time energy and money will be invested before we know if
this idea is feasible. The idea might be a dead end it may not result
in a cure for aids, but because the cure is worth any cost funding
will likely appear at there doorstep. Listening to you all these
billions of dollars invested in R&D that haven't yet developed a cure
for aids is a *crisis*.

The same is true with software development, customers have ideas too
the goals often revolve around increasing revenue, decreasing
expenses, attracting more customers, protecting corporate assets,
developing new technology, etc..
Initially this idea has a fairly high risk, it might not be feasible
or cost effective. But before we know we need to spend some time &
money to find out. We might decide that we will invest a X to
determine if the idea is feasible and cost effective and a project is
born. Once we begin to study the requirements we begin to get a feel
for its true risk levels. If the idea is not feasible or cost
effective we want to know this as soon as possible while our
investment is minimal rather then gigantic. Then we reevaluate. All
throughout the project, we constantly we monitor risks, if during
development we hit an unexpected bump, we reevaluate, if things have
changed we can still pull the plug while the investment is minimal,
perhaps the idea wasn't feasible at the time but maybe in a few years
new technology might make a currently infeasible idea feasible or an
idea more cost-effective the investment becomes knowledge. How many
failures did the Wright Brothers endure before they created a
successful airplane? It is cheaper to put scetch the ideas on paper
and build miniture prototypes then to start the actual development no
matter how incremental or well tested the componenets are it means
nothing if the idea itself is flawed. (Well for our 757 we are going
to need a device to flap the wings you start on that, I'm going to
work on the shock absorbers for the landing feet... I see you got the
wing flappers working, great job) even if prototypes might be
espensive to build they are created to test the idea, to mitigate the
risk of a fundimentally flawed idea. This isn't a *crisis* (just
because there are more bad ideas then good ones), it is the
exploration of an idea, a calculated risk, an investment, the cost of
knowledge and progress. The *crisis* I see is spending millions on an
idea doombed to failure when it *could have been cancelled* in the
early stages while investment was still in the thousands.

- Kurt

>
> All the rest is agreeable.

Relevant Pages