The Human Factor in Software Engineering

I have just replied to a questionnaire about professional objectives. My answers must seem quite puzzling, but nevertheless, they are all true.

For instance, I answered with "very true" to "I like doing research just for gaining new knowledge" and "The results of my research must lead to products which improve peoples' lives". Well, yes, why not? Why not love doing basic research for the sake of knowledge and also practical research which really changes the world? This is no contradicting, but rather a problem with time restrictions.

And I said I am willing to take risks, and in the same time said I would like to have a secure professional future. This can both be true. For instance, I can take risks like the need to move to another country, but would like to have the security to have an income. I can risk to loose one month's work for an idea which will finally not work, but this is OK, when on the year's average, I can earn my living with the other projects.

I can also say that it is normal for me to work extra hours, but in the same time, I can wish it would be less.

In a previous questionnaire at one of my employers, I raised some (anonymous) attention by crossing "I would not apply at this company again" as well as "I would recommend this company as an employer to my friends". Why not? The fact that I do not fit in a company's culture does not mean that my friends would not fit. I had some persons in mind who would feel at home there.

I have just been correcting my students' homework about theory of constraints TOC. They had learned the network planning and critical path analysis CPA first, and now I see that I should explain the differences explicitly. This will lead to a philosophical excursion, but I am sure they will be able to follow.
TOC and CPA can be used for analyzing the same work processes, but their objectives are different:

• CPA optimizes the processe's duration. This is relevant when you produce something specifically for one customer and the duration between contracting and delivery are important. This can be a software project, but also producing an individually configured car.
• TOC optimizes the throughput. This is relevant when you produce a large number of identical products. In our exercise, we produce musical boxes. When we produce 5 music boxes per hour, we can sell this number. The customer does not mind how long the process takes. Therefore, parallelization of production steps is not as interesting as in CPA, because parallelization only saves calendar time, but not work time/ cost. Parallelization can even create cost in software engineering, e.g. when we start testing before the code is complete. We risk that code already tested is changed and must be retestet.

All together, we can summarize: Depending on which of the four corners of project manager's square (time, budget, scope or quality), you will use another method for analyzing the process, come to different results and take different measures.
For optimizing quality, of course, TOC and CPA are not made. Measuring and optimizing quality is another interesting topic but can be summarized by a simple "use standards".

In his key note talk at the Karlsruher Entwicklertage yesterday, prof. Michele Lanza talked of IDEs and software visualization. We were travelling through code represented as colourful cities in 3 dimensions (Code city). We learned that "software is beautiful". And that research is not like formula 1: "overpaid drivers running in circles, burning a lot of fuel". Research results like software visualization tools have practical relevance.
However, he was not so fond of empirical research. "Experiment is suicide", it is a waste of time to prove what we knew from the beginning. He said. I am not so happy with this, because having a proof is better than just "knowing". Researchers, too, are humans and can err. And sometimes, empirical research results can be surprising.

It happens amazingly often that you use an online system and even the standard use cases like "edit profile", "modify submission" or "delete submission" are evidently not tested. I won´t tell which conference system it is. But I am really puzzled that they evidently did not test the system. When I modified my submission, this created a new submission. So, I had to delete one of them. I got acknowledgement e-mails for all of these activities. While it is OK (although unusual) to ask me to confirm by e-mail my submission, it is strange that even when deleting a submission, I should confirm by e-mail that I will give this presentation. Ehm?

The IREB (International Requirements Engineering Board) has published a paper about the relationship (especially the compatibility) of requirements engineering and agile development: download here.

Currently, I am caught in the old game: The project´s final date was fixed. I was asked how many of the project´s work packages I can do until that date, within six weeks. Now, I am waiting for the information about which work packages will be mine. The project´s start date is moving, but I bet that the final date will stay fixed. Fortunately, my estimations contained a buffer... Risk management means: You never know what will happen. But you can be certain that something will happen!

You can find here a very good, differentiated discussion of Google´s significance for publishers: "Warum wir Google fürchten"(in German). It discusses how publishers depend on Google, pay them and in the same time fight them. Must we all fear Google?

We all play two roles in Google´s game: We are those who search for knowledge and we also offer information via the internet and expect Google to help us being found.

Google makes things transparent. But due to selection algorithms, SEO and paid advertisements, they also distort our perception of the world. Websites not listed by Google o na top place practically do not exist. So, when you set up a website, you must know Google´s algorithms to optimize the probability that you are found. You not only optimize websites for the reader, but for Google, too! Well, this is marketing.

What we must never forget, however, is that the Internet is still ours. As the data sources and data owners, we must take care what we publish and how, and we must defend our data. Why do people use Gmail when they know that Google can read their emails? Why do they store confidential documents in Google.doc? Anyway, why do we produce so many electronic data? Does everything in our live need documentation?

And as someone looking for information, we must not forget that there are other ways of finding information than by Google. We can subscribe to newsletters, we can recommend websites to each other, we can link to other websites on ours. Just like in the old times when search engines were bad and led us to sex websites mainly. In these days, no-one trusted in search engines and when you did an online research, you asked friends and experts in discussion forums, you collected URL lists published in (printed) magazines, and people formed "web rings" where a list of webpages linked to each other in order to form a surf ring of websites treating similar topics. We can still do that!

Clearly: Freelancers are cheaper than employees.
In the IT domain, the difference is not as large as in other areas. However, it is evident, when you calculate all cost caused by an employee like paid vacations, work place and technology used, administrative support, training. Take the salary times 2.4 and you get the complete cost an employee causes.

I believe that there is always a reason for such differences. Money is taken so important by most people and therefore serves as an important criterion for decisions of all kinds. A thing´s price therefore measures its value. Not its objective value, but the subjective value. The price results from a measuring of forces of those who sell and those who buy.

As freelancers are cheaper than employees, this creates two questions which can discuss how the price differences was created and why it stays:

1.) Why do employers employ people if they can get
a freelancer cheaper? The naive reply would be that employers mainly pay for loyality and knowledge management. They need at least a core team which collects and conserves experiences, so errors are not repeated. However, their readiness to fire people shows this is not always the explanation. I believe it is like this: Each manager´s importance is measured by the number of his employees, not his freelancers. So, he has an interest in having employees below him to give him importance. It is the same for the company. A company´s size is measured in number of employees. So, by employing people, who might be more expensive and less productive than freelancers, the company buys reputation. I know only one exception: Private universities measure their size in number of students, not by professors or employees. So, they can work with few professors and many freelance trainers.

2.) Why do people work for less money, if as an
employee they could earn more? What do they pay this
financial price for?
There can be different reasons for this. The low income can be the prize of risk and opportunity. As a freelancer, you might earn several thousand a day, but it is also possible that you must work much for a low income. In average, it will be lower than for an employee, calculating all your overhead like insurances, training, income loss during vacations and all.
However, some have no choice. Being competent but having an unusual CV, they pay the price for going their own way before. Maybe, they were too eager and changed job for improvement too often, maybe they said their opinion too often or made important people their ennemies.
For me, the risk and lower income are the price of freedom. I can follow my own ideas, at own risk. Especially in terms of moral. No lying to customers, no intrigues in the "team", just results and quality. As an employee, I felt like by paying me a salary, I belong to the company completely, including my spare time and my opinions. My customers do not demand such things from me! I am not paid for having no own opinion, but I am paid for having one!