I keep tabs on the FOSS offerings in a casual way.  It’s always interesting to see new projects, new intentions and money being put into software.   Take a wider angle with me for a moment.  Do we really need it all?  Allow me to argue that these intentions are misplaced, and that most software gets worse for a very specific reason.

Axiom: Complexity for the user invites simple competitors

That’s the part that is important.  However, the second part could read “those competitors will soon make their user experience complex”.   There is more than one thing becoming complex in older software: the user experience and the code. The main reason we train in software engineering is to keep complexity controlled. Complexity, if not controlled, is confusion.  So if a user, or an engineer is working with software, and they don’t feel in control of the core functionality of it, they might move on, or companies might re-do the effort to compete with it.

Starting is sexy.  Building on a legacy, not.

The company, or individual says to themselves “Why not create this software better”, rather than purchasing/using existing code, and going on from there.  Starting, that’s sexy.  Remember when you first fell in love? Nothing like it! Until you do it again, right?  Taking an old piece of software that does everything you want, just not the way you want, that’ not sexy.

Want proof?  Take a look at SourceForge, and the available content management systems written in PHP.   See, the user experience of every one on there is really bad, OR, it is quite easy to use, but doesn’t have any power.   Think of the reason for this:  A single author gets inspired to create a new CMS (because, that’s just sexy and fun), because they think they can do it better.  In fact, their thoughts on how to do it better are most likely an improvement over the system in question. So they create it, know it in an out, and it turns out, most likely, alright to lame.  We haven’t touched on the problem yet!

Collaborative will and enthusiasm is killed by confusing software

When the next fellow comes along to help with the system, that might work, if they can grasp it quickly.  If the system is overly complex, they might create their own system from scratch, just to avoid a confusing experience.

The other part of the problem:

Without a nagging champion for simplicity on your team, software will evolve into a confusing experience

We know that creating software is by nature complex.  Also, creating simple, and powerful user experience requires very complex software.  Now we have two things going against us: The inherent complexity of software engineering, and, the complexity of engineering it to be simple for the user.  Wait, let’s add a third!  The complexity of creating a intuitive, and understandable experience for the programmer.  That will keep the program moving forward into the future.  Build opposite, and all your programmers will treat you like a mean dictator until you allow them to rewrite it.

The answer to the problems above, well, those are tricky I think, and I couldn’t fully answer them.  However, if we are looking out for the problems, that’s a good start.  We seldom see companies that are willing to invest properly into achieving simplicity.  I hope to be one of those.

Forcing myself to find SOMETHING to read in the generic selection my local library offers, I picked up the most insightful looking book I could find: The Halo Effect

It’s funny, how simple an idea it exposes. Simple and wonderful. The other “Business Delusions” really just support the Halo Effect.  The Halo effect is simple: Generalizing a company based on their profits. It also impedes our learning, which is the real purpose behind the book.  Once you understand the Halo Effect ( you will in a moment ), you begin to see that it is proliferated in most business writing and research.

I will give you an example of the Halo effect.  Which internet company is best known for:

• great technological advances
• being the best place to work
• new strategies/processes that are different but great
• a true focus on what customers what

Google! Your right.  In fact, you would have to live in a box not to have ready an articles praising how Larry and Sergey tie their shoes in the morning.  Here is the problem: Research and journalism at large will not call ANYTHING Google Inc. is doing wrong.  They are making a generalizing, based on how much money they net.  So now, we are left with a distorted model on how to run our companies.

The halo effect infects most every level of journalism and research.  So if we take an employee survey, and ask Googlians if they are treated well, or if their company has an unusually strong focus on customers, the results are predictably positive.  Phil systematically shows how companies that are making a lot money have these generalizations made about every part of the company, and the same thing happens in the negative when the company does poorly.  One Forbes reporter was questioned why he was negative about the very same company he once praised, while really nothing had changed besides their cash flow.  The tactics of that specific company didn’t change, and when Google stops preforming as well ( thousands of years of market history say it will have a downturn ) , the very same tactics/focus/work environment will be castigated as “too loose”, “lazy”, “over the top” etc..

Nowhere does a halo currently shine as brightly as upon Google. Reporters marvel at Google’s wonderful “anything-goes spirit” where the absence of supervision is said to stimulate creativity and where no one needs to worry about whether projects will be profitable. Co-founder Larry Page is said to praise managers who made million-dollar errors, thanking them for their willingness to take risks. In fact, what’s said about Google is eerily similar to what was said about another New Economy wonder, Cisco Systems, a decade ago. That company, too, was admired for its wild ways—until a sharp downturn led critics to castigate it for those same qualities. From Halo to Hell

I have know acknowledged the existence of Halos, which will aid me from this point on evaluate research with much more discernment.  In fact, just the other day I heard a author interviewed on PBS state that Starbucks is loosing profit because they have lost their once great focus on the customer.  Really?  My usual iced green tea tastes great, and is delivered by smiling, competent employees.  I would like to hear the proof that they have lost their “customer focus”.