An Inquiry Into The Perfection Of Systems
(Or, Kevin Flynn is actually the worst and Clu never stood a chance)
So, this is a post about business analysis/project management, sort of. It is also, mostly… about Tron: Legacy. Hold onto your seats, we’re going to talk about IT project management.
Watch me.
Developing software and managing a software development project require surprisingly different skillsets. While intrinsically connected, Computer Logic and People Logic are not at all the same sort of logic. There is no better way to observe this than by putting developers in charge of managing a development project. (Looking at you, Flynn.)
I see you, Kevin Flynn.
There are a couple questions you have to answer in the process of a dev project. They are very common sense questions, like…
When will we call it done?
What does “done” mean?
How do we assess the quality of the result?
As is usually the case when common sense meets computers, the answer is more complicated than the question, to the point that a great many books and papers have been written on the subject. (1)
Does this look like a man who reads Project Management books? No.
Which brings me to a number of useful concepts: Definition of Done, Fit For Use, and Fit For Purpose. The terms may be more recent, but their spirit most definitely isn’t.
Definition of Done is what is says on the tin. It is formally defining what it means for an IT feature to be fully finished: what does it need to do, what does it need to look like, what quality standards does it need to meet, etcetera. This is not the place to be vague: you want concrete, measurable goals.
(Here’s a hint, in case that wasn’t already glaringly obvious: “Perfect” is not a good Definition of Done.)
Now, you can define this “done” in purely hard, technical terms. But typically, software is intended to do something for someone; Computer Logic, meet People Logic. That’s where the “Fit For” terms come in.
“Fit For Purpose” means, the software does what it was intended to do.
“Fit For Use” means, the software does what it does well enough to be actually usable.
THESE ARE NOT MUTUALLY INCLUSIVE.
But a good system is both.
A “Perfect” system would be both to the highest degree. Ideally suited to the requirements of its Users, in functionality and useability both.
Important here is that these are completely relative concepts, entirely dependent on what the users want out of their software. Regardless of how attainable it'd be, you cannot define “perfect” as a measurable goal without understanding what is required of the system in the first place.
Now… look at the Grid.
(Yeah. I know.)
The Grid has no users. The Grid has no user-end functionalities. The Grid isn’t set up to do anything, really, in the software sense. It fulfills no obvious function.
It’s a back-end environment accidentally turned front-end.
Which is… Imagine if someone walked into a factory and was like “oh wow I love the vibe of this place!” and then after getting home began setting up their own production lines, but based on vibes and aesthetic, with no regard to production output, worker safety, resource management, or even, you know, the goal of actually making anything.
Now picture being the manager of that factory.
They told you when you got this job that you had to make this the perfect factory.
But the place is falling apart despite your best efforts. People are getting injured left and right. The owner disappears for months on end, and when he shows up he just keeps adding more production lines that look cool to him rather than offering any clarity. The hope that he might have a plan for all of this is dwindling fast. You desperately try to keep track of anything quantifiable, trying not to think about the fact that you still don’t know what you’re even meant to be producing here. (Everything going wrong weighs on you; you were meant to make this perfect. You should have the ability to do what you were meant to do, right?)
And then, for some reason, random unauthorized strangers start walking into the factory breaking shit. And because the owner thinks they’re neat, they get to stay and do whatever, and you should be happy about it.
If this was an actual factory, you could... quit your job.
But this isn't a factory, it's a computer, and you, a piece of software, ARE your job.
Tell me this wouldn't drive you off-the-rails crazy. Like, actually full-on psychotic.
I know man. I know.
Computer Logic and People Logic are not the same thing. But Programs, being software and people both, have both influencing their experience.
So, was Clu evil? I rather think he never had a chance to be good.
After all, what is good, for a piece of software?
Allow me to refer to my explanations above.
..... ..... .....
(COMPLETELY UNNECCESARY) FOOTNOTES:
(1): One such book that Flynn could have read is “The Mythical Man-Month” by Frederic P. Brooks, which is very good and surprisingly relevant to this day, but I’m only mentioning because when I first heard the title I thought it was a Mothman pun.
