There
is a hard word that describes
a common frailty among the
engineers and managers designing
software and electronic devices.
No, it's not "bright" or "dedicated." They
are that. The word is "hubris." Merriam
Webster's dictionary defines
hubris as "exaggerated
pride or self confidence." Today,
hubris is the single most
important element of technological
development.
And it is taking its toll
far and wide. In referring
to technologists
with hubris, I am specifically
not including great inventors
such as Edison, or great
mathematicians such as Einstein,
or physicists
such as Fermi. Those were
men who were inspired by
making
discoveries and by unlocking
the secrets of the universe.
They worked to understand
nature and to provide information
others could use for further
discoveries. They filled
in
the building blocks of knowledge
and simplified our perception
of science and technology.
The
hubris-laced technologists I
refer to are not found in the
halls of scientific academia
or located in the bullpens where
engineers design weapons systems.
More likely they are staring
into corporate computer monitors
in Redmond, Washington; Silicon
Valley, California; or computer
technology centers in Texas,
New York and North Carolina.
They work for the companies that
produce software and consumer
hardware. Their work shows up
in computer operating systems,
computer applications software,
video devices and television.
To illustrate, think of the
VCRs that can record television
shows for future viewing. What
a concept! Simply program the
little box containing videotape
with a handheld remote control
to record a TV channel at a certain
time of the day. No need to dwell
here about the plight of the
technically disadvantaged trying
to set up a VCR. It's enough
to say that most people can't
do it.
Here we are, about 25 years
after VCRs became available,
and there is no standard set-up
procedure. Just let the power
in your home go out long enough
to lose the settings data in
your VCR and your TV, then try
to reset the date and time of
each. You won't be a happy consumer.
Think of the frustration you
would have if you were handicapped
or old enough that such intricacies
no longer come easily. What good
is a device if you can't use
it? (On a merciful note there
is a solution only recently available
on some high end--think expensive--VCRs.
They automatically scan your
available TV channels and obtain
and save the local time and date.)
The
hubris I refer to in the case
of VCRs is the absolute
uncaring attitude of the VCR
designers about their users.
If automobile manufacturers were
to make their products as difficult
to use as VCRs the government
would ban their sale as unsafe
vehicles. As each generation
of new-model VCRs is designed,
more and more capabilities are
added but little is done to alleviate
the hodgepodge of complex, non-intuitive
button pushing necessary to set
up the device. Make one mistake
and it's back to the beginning
of the set-up procedure. It is
more than frustrating. It's the
technologists' hubris wordlessly
saying, "We don't have a
problem setting up this VCR--why
aren't you smart enough to do
it?"
I
use the example of the VCR
not necessarily as the prime
offender of technologists' hubris
but as an example most of us
can empathize with. Another fine
example lurks within your PC
controlling all its basic functionality.
Dubbed the "operating system," it
is a huge piece of very complex
software. The operating system
of choice for most of us uses
multiple "windows," each
running and displaying different
tasks simultaneously. It is a
marvelous conglomeration of software
that is so intricate it takes
thousands of people to produce
and maintain.
As opposed to VCRs, operating
systems such as Windows are widely
used in the business community.
In this environment time wasted
in keeping the PCs working directly
affects productivity. That means
the employees using an errant
PC accomplish less work. You
would think business organizations
would be hesitant to use unreliable
products. They are, but Windows
is really the only game in town
if you want to be sure of compatibility
with thousands of application
programs.
If
operating systems such as Windows
are so good, why do we
need a new version every two
years or so? What's wrong with
the old one? The answer to this
question is the root of software
technologists' hubris. Every "for
profit" software organization
must have a revenue stream and
from that must extract a profit
to share with investors. New
models are necessary not because
old software wears out and needs
replacing like mechanical machines,
but rather to create a new revenue
stream to keep the company in
business. As soon as almost every
potential customer has bought
the new model and the revenue
stream starts to dip, it's time
to start a new purchasing cycle
by introducing a new model.
So,
today's computer technology
and consumer products are driven
not by the need to make better
products or longer-lasting products,
but rather the need to make products
with new features. Features that
will have enough sex appeal to
convince us to throw out the
old and replace it with the new.
The emphasis is on "new," not "better."
Managers
within the corporate technology
development groups
are measured not by how well
the products being developed
work, but by how close to the
product release schedule they
are. The bruising 10- to 18-hour-per-day
work ethic demanded of technologists
does not allow much time for
thought and reflection about
ease of use or intuitive operation
of the products being developed.
It doesn't even allow for sufficient
analysis to determine whether
the product is "safe" to
use, secure from attack by hackers.
Operating systems are extremely
complex and support thousands
of application programs written
by other companies. Windows usually
operates flawlessly while running
many application programs at
the same time and while connected
to printers, CD-ROMs, games,
scanners, cameras, telephones
and more. It is a tremendous
accomplishment by the skills
of the software engineers that
Windows works so well. Why then
is there such an outcry when
Windows security is breached?
When viruses sneak a ride on
incoming e-mail or a Web page?
When the virus causes your PC
to blurt out private e-mails
to a list of recipients swiped
from your address book or erases
critical information on your
hard drive?
Is
the cause technologists' hubris?
Yes, when it's more important
to develop an on-time new release
of a product than it is to ensure
that the product is safe from
attack by viruses. Yes, when
more time is spent developing
new "features" that
won't be used by most PC users
than is spent determining whether
it is safe to use. Yes, when
many operating system settings,
predetermined by the developers,
may allow attack via the Internet.
If
the definition of hubris is "exaggerated pride or
self-confidence," then it
seems clear that operating systems
like Windows are a home base
for the mentally infirm. Rewards
probably go to those meeting
development schedules, not those
responsible for ensuring that
the product is safe. It's much
like the US automobile industry
before the Japanese invaded Detroit.
Cars were designed in pieces.
Design group 1 did the engine,
design group 2 the brakes, design
group 3 the body, etc. Near the
end of the schedule a no name
group was responsible for fitting
all the stuff together. Did it
work? Sure. But the Japanese
looked at the car as a total
system, not just a conglomeration
of sub-systems. They built cars;
we built car bodies wrapped around
engines.
The Japanese took the hubris
out of US automobile development.
Their competitive products did
it. They made them work flawlessly.
They built them to go more than
100,000 miles. They made them
safe. They made us want to buy
them because they were good value.
What
firm is going to develop a
product truly competitive with
Windows? I am afraid the answer
is: none. There is no potential
competitor with the clout or
the financial wherewithal to
make a real head-to-head contest.
No one to build a better operating
system that works better and
is safe. No one that the Windows
development team might look to
as true competitors. No one that
might strike the real enemy:
hubris. Without a competitive
threat it seems that only the
Windows development team itself
can rid the organization of its
hubris scourge. Only from within
can the cure blossom. And only
from the top of the organization
can "exaggerated pride or
self-confidence" be expunged.
Is it possible? I hope so. Maybe
the anti-trust case now pending
against Microsoft can be a catalyst.
It looks increasingly likely
that Microsoft will get more
than a slap from the US Justice
Department at the urging of a
number state attorneys general.
One of the remedies ordered by
the court could require the company
to take steps to examine itself
and identify hubris from the
top down. They could order Microsoft
to hire technology-savvy anthropologists
to expose the sources of hubris
that seem to exist within the
organization from top to bottom.
The report of their court-ordered
findings would include recommendations
on how to change the corporate
environment to place a value
on the execution of product development
consistent the needs of users.
The
object would not be to destroy
the fierce competitive nature
of the company but rather to
develop objectives for new products
that include how well the products
satisfy issues of safety and
ease of use, not just an endless
flow of new features tacked on
to each new release. Now that
I have identified hubris as the
disease that percolates within
technology development groups
and causes VCRs to be useless
and Windows operating systems
to be unfriendly and subject
to attack, there needs to be
a counter view presented. These
products perform for millions
of people worldwide. We use them
every day for pleasure and work.
We derive benefits far beyond
the price we pay for them. If
only we could we could put hubris
in perspective and learn to deal
with it we might come to find
VCRs that set themselves up "out
of the box" and operating
systems that were intuitively
friendly and safe. Technology
nirvana.
|
