Ramblings for today ..
I don't claim that I know everything that is the essence of IT education, but one component that I firmly believe should be in IT education is the ability to honestly and clearly communicate technical complexity .
I think it's sad that information technologists (the term i use to refer to programmers, system analysts, architects, and the likes) are encouraged - and to some extent are even penalized if they fail - to simplify the complexity of a technical artifact.
Some technical artifacts (whether it is a system, or a sub-system, or the likes) are complex by nature, and forcing simplification isn't really doing anybody any favours. It's like forcing your goalkeeper to "be nice and sit down" for the duration of the game and still maintain a clean sheet.
In IT, conquering complexity is the name of the game. Ignoring complexity is a sure way to lose the game. (Note: there's a difference between ignoring complexity and 'managing complexity'; the second involves still being honest about the level of complexity involved).
I've done a project once where I've spent almost 3 months designing and building a system and in order to help my superior understand the system, i've removed the technical details and presented only the 'gist of it all', i.e. the functional scope and a very high-level abstraction of the architecture. The response I got was: "this is to simple, this is not even a system.". Back then, I've totally lost the game because I failed to communicate the complexity of my work; the work got thrashed not because it's not good enough, but because I forgot to pop open the hood and let the guys take a peek at what's inside.
Being able to honestly and clearly communicate technical complexity is important. But it's hard, it's hard for many reasons. The complexity itself is a culprit; the fact that most problems are even too complex for the technologist to comprehend is another culprit.
But there's another group of troublemakers. These are those who see 'anything technical' with great fear; people who'd be intimidated at the thought that there is something of great complexity that they cannot comprehend. And so, they'd rather see it as the failure of the technologist for not being able to simplify technical matters into something that is understandable.
I'm sorry, some things are complex by nature; and communication is like dancing, all members of the party must participate, and that means you either be ignorant or try to master the complexity of the problem at hand. Putting the blame on another person saying "you guys are so technical; you don't communicate well enough", when the technologist have tried his/her best to communicate the complexity of the matter is not a good excuse.
The idea that I'm trying to convey is that technical communication education is a must for even people who claim that they are non-technical. This education involves accepting that some things are complex by nature, and that it's never only one person's responsibility to 'hide all that under the hood'; mastering complexity should be on the mind of every person in the team.
So in summary, I've mentioned three things:
1) honest and clear technical communication is a must-have item in any IT education
2) it's a must-have because complexity is the name of the game in IT
3) the education is not only for technical people, but also for non-technical people because mastering complexity requires a team-game; it's never one person's responsibility.
I think it's sad that information technologists (the term i use to refer to programmers, system analysts, architects, and the likes) are encouraged - and to some extent are even penalized if they fail - to simplify the complexity of a technical artifact.
Some technical artifacts (whether it is a system, or a sub-system, or the likes) are complex by nature, and forcing simplification isn't really doing anybody any favours. It's like forcing your goalkeeper to "be nice and sit down" for the duration of the game and still maintain a clean sheet.
In IT, conquering complexity is the name of the game. Ignoring complexity is a sure way to lose the game. (Note: there's a difference between ignoring complexity and 'managing complexity'; the second involves still being honest about the level of complexity involved).
I've done a project once where I've spent almost 3 months designing and building a system and in order to help my superior understand the system, i've removed the technical details and presented only the 'gist of it all', i.e. the functional scope and a very high-level abstraction of the architecture. The response I got was: "this is to simple, this is not even a system.". Back then, I've totally lost the game because I failed to communicate the complexity of my work; the work got thrashed not because it's not good enough, but because I forgot to pop open the hood and let the guys take a peek at what's inside.
Being able to honestly and clearly communicate technical complexity is important. But it's hard, it's hard for many reasons. The complexity itself is a culprit; the fact that most problems are even too complex for the technologist to comprehend is another culprit.
But there's another group of troublemakers. These are those who see 'anything technical' with great fear; people who'd be intimidated at the thought that there is something of great complexity that they cannot comprehend. And so, they'd rather see it as the failure of the technologist for not being able to simplify technical matters into something that is understandable.
I'm sorry, some things are complex by nature; and communication is like dancing, all members of the party must participate, and that means you either be ignorant or try to master the complexity of the problem at hand. Putting the blame on another person saying "you guys are so technical; you don't communicate well enough", when the technologist have tried his/her best to communicate the complexity of the matter is not a good excuse.
The idea that I'm trying to convey is that technical communication education is a must for even people who claim that they are non-technical. This education involves accepting that some things are complex by nature, and that it's never only one person's responsibility to 'hide all that under the hood'; mastering complexity should be on the mind of every person in the team.
So in summary, I've mentioned three things:
1) honest and clear technical communication is a must-have item in any IT education
2) it's a must-have because complexity is the name of the game in IT
3) the education is not only for technical people, but also for non-technical people because mastering complexity requires a team-game; it's never one person's responsibility.
posted by JPG at
13:05
2 Comments:
I think it's not merely applicable for IT education, but anything under the sun that requires complex understanding for both parties (the technologist and the clients), e.g. communication between doctors and patients about their "technical" plan of the medication / treatment.
Don't give up, JPG! People like us are born to bridge the gap ;)
By
June S, at 11:25 AM
I've also noticed that the medical profession has a considerable amount of complexity too. But here's the fundamental difference: technical experts in medicine are revered (seen as "high-profile consultants"), whereas technical experts in IT are more often ridiculed than not (seen as "arrogant techies who hasn't seen much outside his own little cubicle").
Perhaps it boils down to the fundamentals, i.e. the respect that the public has for a field. How they feel about the profession influences how they feel about the people who are experts in that profession.
It's like people who hate lawyers and politicians because they have a certain disrespect about the profession - not because they've met all the lawyers and politicians in the world and find them being egocentric manipulative dishonest creeps.
Medicine has always been respected - to the extent that even if a few doctors are corrupt, the practice of medicine would still be respected. The IT profession may not be seen with that high regards no matter what.
Sad, isn't it ?
By
JPG, at 12:34 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home