Joe's Jottings
Jottings Number 55, Reply A, by Masa Habu
Date: Wed, 15 May 96 11:30:03 -0700
Nader kindly forwards your message to us regularly, and I get impressed very much one way or the other everytime I read it. First, I appreciate your insights into so may subjects. Here is my thoughts on this subject. I know that you love to get feedbacks - whatever that is as long as they are reasonable. I like your analogy of film and software. I really do. > > I used to think that the answer was simply to "become more > disciplined." That's what the Japanese tried to do. Their > culture is much more amenable to structure, and they spent loads > of money and energy to build software factories, to certify > their programmers, to do software "right." This approach, after > all, worked with VCRs, cameras, and TVs, industries which they > captured through their focus and disciplined, low-cost > manufacturing processes. > > But the Japanese failed with software. The counterfeiters in > China steal U.S. software, not Japanese. We in the West may be > process slobs, but we seem to be building what the marketplace > wants. You are probably right except that Japan has a big market share in Nintendo-type game software industry. I have read an article which points out that a Japanese game software industry is young and very "undisciplined". It's a high-risk, high-return market where a key software designer/engineer gets paid a lot. This high pay attracts talented people seeking a fortune. Of course, the majority would just fail. It is a high-risk business. Producing software is fundamentally different from producing TV or VCR. As you know, software can be copied easily which one might call "software production". I have been thinking that software production is essentially a design process. In this sense it is similar to designing a new car or a new TV. Once it is designed, it must be deployed which includes marketing, sales, support, and consumer education. Of course, some discipline is still necessary, but that's not all we need. IBM introduced the "Chief Programmer" team after analyzing a medical operation team. I don't know if they are still doing this practice. However, having a talented "director" seems to be a definite must for creating a successful software product. The problem is that such a person is rare - 62TC may take such a "director" role if there is a good fit for that person. The list of "selection criteria" that you gave us is well-written, but not surprising. Getting a person who has a sense for these criteria in a given field is tough. We may be able to train engineers to become sensitive for this criteria. That may be the next thing we should add to the core CS courses. I don't downplay the importance of marketing people who have a sense on this criteria. That's why R&D and Mktg work as a team. Still, I believe that your analogy of film and software holds, and we need a good "director" and hopefully a good "producer" for each software team to be successful. -- Masa Habu Mail Stop: 42UO CSO/NCD/CSSL/EOP 11000 Wolfe Road, Phone: (408)-447-7564 FAX: (408)-447-0519 Cupertino, CA 95014-9913 E-mail: mhabu@cup.hp.com