My entry for this week's NewYorker cartoon caption contest. What do you think?
11 hours ago
[ A blog about things i experience, say and sometimes write]
For most thinking workers, making an occasional mistake is a natural- from 'Peopleware: Productive Projects and Teams' by Tom DeMarco & Timothy Lister
and healthy part of their work. But there can be an almost Biblical
association between error on the job and sin. This is an attitude
we need to take specific pains to change.
Speaking to a group of software managers, we introduced a
strategy for what we think of as iterative design. The idea is that
some designs are intrinsically defect-prone; they ought to be rejected,
not repaired. Such dead ends should be expected in the design
activity. The lost effort of the dead end is a small price to pay for a
clean, fresh start. To our surprise, many managers felt this would
pose an impossible political problem for their own bosses: "How
can we throw away a product that our company has paid to produce?"
They seemed to believe that they'd be better off salvaging
the defective version even though it might cost more in the long run.
Fostering an atmosphere that doesn't allow for error simply
makes people defensive. They don't try things that may turn out
badly. You encourage this defensiveness when you try to systematize
the process, when you impose rigid methodologies so that staff
members are not allowed to make any of the key strategic decisions
lest they make them incorrectly. The average level of technology
may be modestly improved by any steps you take to inhibit error.
The team sociology, however, can suffer grievously.
The opposite approach would be to encourage people to make
some errors. You do this by asking your folks on occasion what
dead-end roads they've been down, and by making sure they
understand that "none" is not the best answer. When people blow
it, they should be congratulated—that's part of what they're being
paid for.