The Housework Theory of Productivity
Posted By Kate Armel on Wed, 2011-03-09 15:07<< Has Software Productivity Declined Over... | Main | Poll: Why Does Productivity Increase... >>
Since we're speculating about why (in the aggregate at least) software productivity appears to have declined over time, here's another possible cause. I call it The Housework Theory of Productivity.
Back in great-Grandma's time, cleaning was a labor intensive endeavor. Rugs were swept once or twice a week and taken outside and beaten by hand once a year. Those cheery little scrubbing bubbles weren't around to whisk the pesky soap scum from our bathtubs - they hadn't been invented yet. When it came to cleaning, our aspirations were limited by the time and effort required to complete even the simplest tasks.
Over time various "labor saving" devices ushered in heretofore unheard of levels of springtime fresh cleanliness. But there was a downside to these advances: as our ability to get things clean increased, so did our expectations. The work expanded to fill the time (and energy) available to us.
If we were to compare two software projects that are same size and perform the same function (but were completed 20 years apart), we'd likely find the modern billing system smaller in size but far richer in features. It would also be more complex, both from an algorithmic and an architectural standpoint. Because today's programming tools and languages make it possible to deliver more value per line of code or function point, our standards have risen. We expect more for our time and money.
This phenomenon may help to explain why so-called "silver bullet" technologies rarely lead to huge increases in measured productivity. Measuring delivered code volume is fairly straightforward. Added value - in the form of increased complexity; greater ease of use, scalability or portability; or richer features - is harder to account for in a productivity metric.
Related Posts
Comments
Smart Cars and Smart Roads
Posted by Kate Armel on Tue, 2011-03-15 11:06Great comment!
We're actually seeing that here in the DC area. No matter how much experience we have, we humans do a very poor job of accounting for unintended consequences.
I'm not sure why we're always so surprised by them - if you look at how various changes affect incentives, most unintended consequenes are actually pretty predictable!
House Work Theory
Posted by on Mon, 2011-03-14 16:29Nice analogy. Reminds me of an incident when there was research and a lot of discussdion about creating smart cars and smart roads so that cars could travel faster and closer on freeways. The idea was, of course, to reduce congestions and commute time. One result of some surveys, that has stuck in my mind, was a person who said, "That's great now I can move twice as far away from work and not increase commute time." If the plan had actually been implemented and this comment was representative then people would be willing to commute further distances and thus the area surrounding a commute location would increase. The net effect would be greater congestion and longer commutes.
Wayne Angel
