The present model of development has split the disciplines into separate camps which sets up adversarial roles. Obviously, this is not good. Their motives aren't aligned and how they each turn a profit is also at odds. This varies considerably from web development where each discipline is frightfully aware that the ultimate success of the final product is crucial to their livelihood and the livelihood of their teammates. I've heard, on more than one occasion, that by having different motives for different professions involved in construction the best result can be achieved. By having to fight for design, you get the best design. By having to fight for the budget, you get the best price. They try to create conflict thinking that artificial strife will get the best out of the disparate disciplines. That theory has been put to the test these last few years and the results are in. Those that sought creative strife artificially, without exception, have been bankrupted. Those that sought to create a harmonious, mutually supportive team have endured a slowdown but are still going concerns. The cruel reality of the last few years is that the budget always won in the artificial strife scenario. This was based on a value engineering model, which, due to its many failings, has been replaced by value management. The customer was forgotten and the results are empty towers the world over. The developer is left with an empty tower, the architect is placed on a list of creditors knowing they'll never get paid, the builder - depending on their geography - is either on that same list of creditors or has plenty of money in the bank. The team, and in this case I use the term loosely, was never really cohesive and were shooting for different goals. It's no wonder their efforts fell flat. If, on the other hand, their compensation was tied to the financial success of their venture then their motivations would be completely different. Setting up a development company as if it were a true team with the same end goal in would free the disciplines to share a common vision, share feedback from the intended customers, and bring their considerable resources to craft the best possible solution. This is how the best vehicles are built. Designers, engineers, and manufacturing work together to create an attractive, fun to drive, high quality and cost effective vehicle. This is how great tech companies are organized. The web designers work with the web architects and the marketing team to attract customers. Facebook is a huge database that has a user friendly GUI and great interoperability with other sites and technologies. It takes a team of talented people with different skill sets working together toward a common goal to make that happen. Don't separate the powers, build a talented team. Don't worry about creative strife, that happens naturally.
Monday, May 30, 2011
Agile Development : Separation of Powers
The present model of development has split the disciplines into separate camps which sets up adversarial roles. Obviously, this is not good. Their motives aren't aligned and how they each turn a profit is also at odds. This varies considerably from web development where each discipline is frightfully aware that the ultimate success of the final product is crucial to their livelihood and the livelihood of their teammates. I've heard, on more than one occasion, that by having different motives for different professions involved in construction the best result can be achieved. By having to fight for design, you get the best design. By having to fight for the budget, you get the best price. They try to create conflict thinking that artificial strife will get the best out of the disparate disciplines. That theory has been put to the test these last few years and the results are in. Those that sought creative strife artificially, without exception, have been bankrupted. Those that sought to create a harmonious, mutually supportive team have endured a slowdown but are still going concerns. The cruel reality of the last few years is that the budget always won in the artificial strife scenario. This was based on a value engineering model, which, due to its many failings, has been replaced by value management. The customer was forgotten and the results are empty towers the world over. The developer is left with an empty tower, the architect is placed on a list of creditors knowing they'll never get paid, the builder - depending on their geography - is either on that same list of creditors or has plenty of money in the bank. The team, and in this case I use the term loosely, was never really cohesive and were shooting for different goals. It's no wonder their efforts fell flat. If, on the other hand, their compensation was tied to the financial success of their venture then their motivations would be completely different. Setting up a development company as if it were a true team with the same end goal in would free the disciplines to share a common vision, share feedback from the intended customers, and bring their considerable resources to craft the best possible solution. This is how the best vehicles are built. Designers, engineers, and manufacturing work together to create an attractive, fun to drive, high quality and cost effective vehicle. This is how great tech companies are organized. The web designers work with the web architects and the marketing team to attract customers. Facebook is a huge database that has a user friendly GUI and great interoperability with other sites and technologies. It takes a team of talented people with different skill sets working together toward a common goal to make that happen. Don't separate the powers, build a talented team. Don't worry about creative strife, that happens naturally.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Learning From Sprawl??!!
Plenty of developers want to be the first to be second. In other words they want somebody else to blaze the trail, and pay for all the res...
-
Plenty of developers want to be the first to be second. In other words they want somebody else to blaze the trail, and pay for all the res...
-
As someone who has been working in the planning profession for over a decade I can honestly say I had never heard of Agenda 21. The first...

No comments:
Post a Comment