Throughout this "economic crisis" many people have found themselves without work. Companies have started to "trim the fat" is drastic ways. Throughout my experience, there have always been a couple main types of companies: those focused on quality and those focused on sales. Companies like Microsoft have always seemed focused on sales, with quality being an afterthought. It doesn't take a phD to consider the years of continual weekly "critical patches and updates" to point this out. Adobe and Apple on the other hand have continually seemed to focus on quality first, even if it meant missing ship dates. Now, this isn't an attempt to start a OS war, nor a product war. And I am sure there are those that are going to disagree. The point of this distinction is to note the difference in corporate philosophy and culture.

What makes a product "good?" What determines quality? What is it that convinces a user of the value of your product? Some would say that if a product sells, then its a successful product. Some say if a product is easily maintainable, and easily scalable and generates some sales, that it is successful. There are points to be made for ease of use/user experience, accuracy of the product, and popularity in the market. Does a software product qualify as "good" if it makes a lot of money? Is money the only measure of quality that businesses understand?

Being in the trenches, I can make the argument that quality refers to the "strength" of a product. When I have worked on past projects, I have often been accused of "thinking too much" during the planning stages. Asking questions that some consider "out of scope," but from my perspective, it is those questions that are important to the project's strength and either add/detract from a product's flexibility and long term use. Most of the time, my questions have been set aside in order to "get to market." But that's the VERY reason I ask them early... because the end result of not thinking through the project leads to more fragility in a endeavour.

There are ALWAYS going to be timelines, albeit many are arbitrarily created. Is the rush to market worth the loss of clients/customers over time? Is it better to gain a sale and risk losing in the long-term, just to get something "out there?" Software has, generally speaking, been dictated by business people that understand buy/sell, and profit/loss, but do they understand our art? To the engineers and developers, we are the dreamers and the people that create "something from nothing." Others take on the task of making money from those dreams. Others have become our masters, telling us what the technology of the future needs to be. But we are the engine of creativity... we are the long-term value in any company. More on this later...