One of my favorite engineering questions is: “What’s wrong with this idea?” It drives the conversation away from why the idea might work, and toward why it might fail. That perspective is invaluable when building.
Architectural mismatch: why reuse is so hard
Why isn't there more progress toward building systems from existing parts? One answer is that the assumptions of the parts about their intended environment are implicit and either don't match the actual environment or conflict with those of other parts. The authors explore these problems in the context of their own experience with a compositional approach.<>
Technology without Industry
A home for poorly researched ideas that I find myself repeating a lot anyway
Worst Possible Idea
There are many brainstorming methods (including bodystorming, p.30, brainwriting 6-3-5, p.32 and group passing, p.82) that are each useful in different circumstances. However, sometimes it can be difficult for people in a group setting to generate ideas. This may be because people are too stuck in current ways of thinking, or they might be concerned about being judged by others for the ideas they propose. Giving people the permission to come up with their worst possible ideas creates a playful, safe environment and helps to get a brainstorming session off to a good start. Ideas might build on each other during the process, and it is indeed possible to generate an idea or way of thinking about the problem that can be fed back into the design process. Managers that have used this method with their teams report that it outperforms by far any other brainstorming method (Dorf, 2017), largely because of its ability to energise a room and enable lateral thinking.
The Beginning of the End of Big Tech
From politicians to VC firms, everyone is falling out of love with the massive, money-oriented, global technology titans. In their place, we have the chance to build something open and trustworthy.
X : Do you think AI / vibe coding is not worthwhile? Me : Are you kidding? I was talking about conversational programming (what you call vibe coding) back in 2018. Of course, I think it's important.… | Simon Wardley | 44 comments
X : Do you think AI / vibe coding is not worthwhile? Me : Are you kidding? I was talking about conversational programming (what you call vibe coding) back in 2018. Of course, I think it's important. I think the approach we're using currently is flawed. X : Why? Me : Well, I could go on about the basics such as the medium is wrong (needs to be more image / whiteboard based rather than text) or how we're getting wrapped up in deterministic outputs (text based code) rather than realising the end outputs will eventually be non-deterministic models or we're still learning practices in this space especially with agents and how we rushing ahead into failure creating trust issues. There's a lot of messy stuff happening. But my real interest is with turning software engineering into an engineering discipline. X : Isn't it? Me : If I look at a map of decision making then testing (specifically TDD) is an engineering topic (see figure 1) but the development part is firmly a craft (see figure 2). If we want to make development an engineering subject then we need to learn from testing i.e. we should be building context specific tools (think a test suite) from lots of micro tools (think tests). See figure 3. X : And AI can help? Me : Oh, yes. In two parts - the construction of micro tools which helps us improve our ttA (time to answer) and in the construction of new hypothesis which helps us improve our ttQ (time to question). See figure 4. X : And is that happening? Me : Very slowly. Remember you have a multi billion dollar tool industry that doesn't want you creating tools and hence they're trying to flog you old tools with a skim of AI. X : But we need people selling pickaxes. Me : Sure. But they've been telling us that their pickaxes work everywhere ... making soup, you need a pickaxe with added AI. X : But coding is coding. Me : An electronic healthcare system is not the same as an online gambling site. The contexts are completely different. It's why the test suites are different and a test is nothing more than a micro tool. Why don't we compose our tool for that context out of micro tools ... just like testing? X : Because it's hard? Me: Pickaxe salespeople must love you. That's their marketing literature. Reminds me of the early days of Test Driven Development (TDD) where most people thought it was mad to build a test suite out of thousands of small tests. | 44 comments on LinkedIn
Excuse me, is there a problem?
Many startups fail despite identifying a real problem and building a product that solves that problem. This explains why, so you can avoid their fate.
Excuse me, is there a problem?
Many startups fail despite identifying a real problem and building a product that solves that problem. This explains why, so you can avoid their fate.
Special Issue Editorial – Accumulation and Evolution of Design Knowledge in Design Science Research: A Journey Through Time and Space
Sir Isaac Newton (1676) famously said, “If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.” Research is a collaborative, evolutionary endeavor—and it is no different with design science research (DSR), which builds upon existing design knowledge and creates new design knowledge to pass on to future projects. However, despite the vast, growing body of DSR contributions, scant evidence of the accumulation and evolution of design knowledge has been articulated in an organized DSR body of knowledge. Most contributions rather stand on their own feet than on the shoulders of giants, and this continues to limit how far we can see, curtailing the extent of the broader impacts that can be made through DSR. In this editorial, we aim at providing guidance on how to position design knowledge contributions in wider problem and solution spaces. We propose (1) a model conceptualizing design knowledge as a resilient relationship between problem and solution spaces, (2) a model that demonstrates how individual DSR projects consume and produce design knowledge, (3) a map to position a design knowledge contribution in problem and solution spaces, and (4) principles on how to use this map in a DSR project. We show how fellow researchers, readers, editors, and reviewers, as well as the IS community as a whole, can make use of these proposals, and also illustrate future research opportunities.
A.I. Should Elevate Your Thinking, Not Replace It - Blog - Koshy John
Read about the hidden divide between self-inflicted irrelevance and real engineering leverage.
The future belongs to those who can refute AI, not just generate with AI
Why verification, not prompting, could shape the next decade of engineering
The Paradox of Perfection: When ‘Good Enough’ is Actually Better
Exploring the tension between engineering perfectionism and pragmatic delivery. Discover why striving for the perfect solution often prevents us from shipping valuable improvements and how to find the balance.
Ikea tried to build a smart home for everyone — here’s why it’s not working yet
The dream of interoperability is still just that.
it's so crazy, sometimes you feel like everything has already been invented and then something pops up that is so obviously like 'why didn't we do this 50 years ago?' would love to see how they're doing the multipart mold - internal bossed measurements and lines would likely be separate segment(s)?
"what if engineering a scientific revolution is, at least in part, a problem of organizing humans and coordinating effort?" uniconq.substack.com/p/the-ground-truth-institute h/t @ranganaut.bsky.social
The Ground Truth Institute
uniconq.substack.comToday I’m playing with an idea that’s been on my mind for too long: storing design systems tokens on the #Atmosphere My proof of concept works, and that Makes Me Happy™
