From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50,INVALID_DATE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!esosun!ucsdhub!sdcsvax!ucbvax!ADA20.ISI.EDU!EBERARD From: EBERARD@ADA20.ISI.EDU (Edward V. Berard) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: The Human Element in Software Engineering Message-ID: <8705191313.AA06594@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> Date: Tue, 19-May-87 07:31:13 EDT Article-I.D.: ucbvax.8705191313.AA06594 Posted: Tue May 19 07:31:13 1987 Date-Received: Wed, 20-May-87 04:57:30 EDT Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Distribution: world Organization: The ARPA Internet List-Id: There is a good deal of wisdom in Sam Harbaugh's response to my recent four-part article on Ada Education and Training. I especially agree with his citing of the old adage: "Never try to teach a pig to sing: it will waste your time and it annoys the pig." In fact, another old saying: "Neither cast ye your pearls before swine." (Matthew 7:6) also came to mind regarding the natural human tendency to reject new technology. Technologists, in general, very often ignore the human element in technology. Many erroneously believe that it is technology that advances technology, when, in fact, it is economics, politics, and sociology which are the main causes of technological change. Nowhere is the attempt to remove human considerations from technology so blatant as it is in the state-of-the-practice of software engineering. Consider the following: 1) Although people such as Barry Boehm have been telling us for years that the greatest improvements in technology will occur when we improve the capabilities of the humans involved in the process (See the front cover of Barry's book, "Software Engineering Economics."), we continually ignore this advice. It seems we much more comfortable creating new automated tools than we are with measuring and improving the capabilities of the humans who will be using the tools. 2) Sociologists tell us that while bringing a group of people one generation ahead in technology is difficult, bringing a group of people ahead two generations of technology is all but impossible. In the area of software engineering, the state-of-the-practice is easily two or more generations behind the state-of-the-art. This leads to some interesting results. For example, while we currently possess the technology to increase our software engineering productivity by at least an order of magnitude, we cannot expect people to begin using this technology on a large scale for at least a decade. (Yes, Sam, I do agree with your observation.) 3) New technology is seldom what people expect it to be. I used to give a seminar on "Measuring and Improving Programmer Productivity." This seminar was attended chiefly by managers who expected me to tell them how to make their programmers code faster in the programming language of their choice. When they heard that the largest gains in productivity required such items as a shift to fourth-generation languages, off-the-shelf software, and smaller technical staffs, the managers often refused to accept the facts, *even when presented with documented evidence supporting the facts.* 4) Even when people claim that they are ready to accept new technology, or even to enthusiastically pursue new types of technology, they often spend enormous amounts of resources (in most cases, the majority of their resources) "re-inventing or re-discovering the wheel." The concept of a simple literature search is beyond most of the people in the software business today. Even those who are capable of even feeble scanning of the technical literature are ill-equipped to understand, much less accurately interpret, what they find. Recently, someone from one of the more prestigious centers of software engineering technology transfer called to ask me about a methodology. This person was part of a group which was researching software development methodologies. This person was shocked when I told him that the work he was charged with had been done at least six times before. Indeed, in addition to numerous government sponsored reports available on the topic, five or six IEEE tutorials, at least three hardback books, numerous foreign government studies, and several publicly available industry and academic studies, there is at least one public seminar on the topic he was researching. 5) Technical people seem very uncomfortable with concepts of ethics, morals, and responsibility. For example, few software engineering courses discuss the ethical implications of a managerial or technical decision. Although there are quite a number of courses and seminars about software law, most deal with the protection of copyrights -- as opposed to the legal responsibilities of the author of the software if reasonable use of the software results in damage to the user. As I have stated before, most people are more comfortable talking about technological change than doing anything about it. As a consultant, I am often asked to pose solutions to any number of software engineering problems. It is a sad fact that most of the people who pose the problems to me are "insane." (Insane by W.S. Humphrey's definition: "There is a definition of insanity that applies to software development. It is said that insane persons believe they can continue doing the same thing over and over and get different results.") They do not want to hear the best, or even a correct, answer. They want to hear more of the same. Sam is also right on another point. The financial rewards of being on the leading edge of technology are meager at best. It is little comfort to realize two years later that you did indeed accurately predict the technological future, but will have to wait another two years to take economic advantage of your prediction. In Greek mythology, a woman named Casandra was cursed by the gods. She was given the power to accurately predict the future. However, the gods made sure that no one would believe her predictions. There is, however, another view. Without people motivating and cajoling the technical population, there would be little work for people like Sam. So, in the future, I will continue in my attempts to "teach pigs to sing." I guess what motivates me is that I have had some success with changing pigs into quasi-rational human beings. (Another of the ancient Greeks, Homer, told us about Circe, a sorceress who turned men into animals. You might say that I am attempting to "reverse the curse.") -- Ed Berard (301) 695-6960 -------