Inmates Are Running The Asylum Quotes

Washington is the only lunatic asylum in the world run by its own inmates.

Eric Raymond says, "Good programmers know what to write. Great ones know what to reuse.

In all other construction disciplines, engineers plan a construction strategy that craftmen execute. Engineers don't build bridges; ironworkers do. Only in software is the engineer tasked with actually building the product. Only in software is the "ironworker" tasked with determining how the product will be constructed.

was a hardcore homeschooler, K-12, baby. I was homeschooled before it was cool to be homeschooled. And you know what? I hardly remember anything from high school. I did all the Advanced Placement classes and SAT prep classes. I was a good student in high school, but I don’t remember much. I also hardly remember anything from college, and I graduated at the top of my class. But I do remember my parents’ devotion to the Lord.

Sort of like the pilot saying, "We're gonna make Chicago on time, but only if we jettison all our baggage!" I've seen product managers sacrifice not only design, but testing, function, features, integration, documentation, and reality. Most product managers that I have worked with would rather ship a failure on time than risk going late.

When programmers speak of "computer literacy," they are drawing red lines around ethnic groups, too, yet few have pointed this out.

You can predict which features in any new technology will be used and which won't. The use of a feature is inversely proportional to the amount of interaction needed to control

Product successes and failures have shown repeatedly that users don't care that much about features. Users only care about achieving their goals.

The Only Thing More Expensive Than Writing Software Is Writing Bad Software

Like putting an Armani suit on Attila the Hun, interface design only tells how to dress up an existing behavior.

The real interaction designer's decisions are based on what the user is trying to achieve.

To deliver both power and pleasure to users, interaction designers think first conceptually, then in terms of behavior, and last in terms of interface.

Lean does not mean letting the inmates run the asylum.

The people who say, “Preach the gospel, and use words if necessary,” seem to forget that the very essence of the gospel is words. They might as well say, “Feed the poor, and use food if necessary,” or, “Pay the bills, and use money if necessary.” The gospel is primarily a message which must be communicated with words. It is good news which must be believed. The good news is that God sent Jesus to live and die in the place of sinners. People cannot embrace the good news if they don’t first hear the good news. Feeding the poor is a good thing, but it isn’t the same thing as proclaiming the message of the gospel. Caring for the homeless is a noble thing to do, but it isn’t preaching the gospel. Preach the gospel, and use words, always.

High cognitive friction polarizes people into two groups. It either makes them feel frustrated and stupid for failing, or giddy with power at overcoming the extreme difficulty. These powerful emotions force people into being either an "apologist" or a "survivor." They either adopt cognitive friction as a lifestyle, or they go underground and accept it as a necessary evil. The polarization is growing acute.

You can blame the "stupid user" all you want, but you still have to staff those phones with expensive tech-support people if you want to sell or distribute within your company software that hasn't been designed.

I would even go so far as to say that the idea of a soul mate is harmful. If you go into marriage expecting your spouse to satisfy your every need and complement you perfectly, you will be sorely disappointed. If you expect your spouse to satisfy the deepest longings of your soul, you are in for a massive let down. Marriage is a covenant between two, imperfect, very flawed, sinful people. You’re not perfect and your spouse isn’t perfect, so don’t expect your marriage to be perfect.

Homo logicus are driven by an irresistible desire to understand how things work. By contrast, Homo sapiens have a strong desire for success. Programmers also want to succeed, but they will frequently accept failure as the price to pay for understanding.

My parents were absolutely fantastic, and they faithfully taught me the word of God, but it was God and only God who caused me to trust in Christ. If the responsibility for my salvation lay with my parents, I never would have trusted Christ at all (my parents would wholeheartedly agree).

Writing software is not a variable cost, but it's not really a fixed cost either. Writing software is an ongoing, revenue-generating operation of the company, and it is not the same as constructing a factory. The expensive craftsmen who build the factory leave and go to work on some other job after the building is erected.

Most software is used in a business context, so most victims of bad interaction are paid for their suffering. Their job forces them to use software, so they cannot choose not to use it—they can only tolerate it as well as they can. They are forced to submerge their frustration and to ignore the embarrassment they feel when the software makes them feel stupid.

If you go into marriage expecting your spouse to satisfy your every need and complement you perfectly, you will be sorely disappointed. If you expect your spouse to satisfy the deepest longings of your soul, you are in for a massive let down.

Maybe our bucket lists should be more about faithfulness than awesomeness. Maybe our bucket lists should be more about serving others than serving ourselves. Maybe our bucket lists should be more about holiness and less about fun. When Jesus returns and creates a new heaven and new earth, I think we’ll look back on our bucket lists with contempt. All the things we strived and strained for will seem paltry and silly. The adventures this life offers can’t hold a candle compared to the adventures of the new heaven and new earth. Those are the adventures really worth living for.

Jesus didn’t say, “Find self-fulfillment, achieve your goals, and then follow me in your spare time.”  Jesus didn’t encourage his followers to achieve their highest potential. Jesus calls for total, wholehearted allegiance, and anything less is wickedness. All of our goals and dreams and desires must be submitted to King Jesus.

The tool was first described in 1998 in one of my all-time favorite books, The Inmates Are Running the Asylum, by Alan Cooper. If you haven’t read this book you should—it’s a classic for product managers, designers, and engineers.

As our economy shifts more and more onto an information basis, we are inadvertently creating a divided society. The upper class is composed of those who have mastered the nuances of differentiating between "RAM" and "hard disk." The lower class consists of those who treat the difference as inconsequential. The irony is that the difference really is inconsequential to anyone except a few hard-core engineers. Yet virtually all contemporary software forces its users to confront a file system, where your success is fully dependent on knowing the difference between RAM and disk. Thus the term "computer literacy" becomes a euphemism for social and economic apartheid. Computer literacy is a key phrase that brutally bifurcates our society.

Programmers become so familiar with code reuse that they often copy existing techniques even when they aren't actually copying code.

I do not blame programmers for hard-to-use software, and I'm very sorry to have given any programmer a contrary impression. With few exceptions, the programmers I know are diligent and conscientious in their desire to please end users and are unceasing in their efforts to improve their programs' quality. Just like users, programmers are simply another victim of a flawed process that leaves them too little time, too many conflicting orders, and utterly insufficient guidance.

The intractability of the software-construction process—particularly the high cost of programming and the low quality of interaction—is simply not a technical problem. It is the result of business practices imposed on a discipline—software programming—for which they are obsolete.

Microsoft is famous for hiring extremely bright, highly aggressive, young people right out of school. Moody says, "I felt like I was watching a gang of adolescents who had sneaked into some corporate headquarters after hours, taken over its boardrooms, and were playing at being businesspeople." Microsoft is also famous for pushing these youngsters very hard to get the most and best out of them. Moody says, "The atmosphere on the campus is one of unrelenting anxiety and constant improvisation." The book is a remarkable chronicle of how arbitrary, demoralizing, and unprofessional Microsoft's development methods often are.

The programmers went off and coded for a while, then brought the finished work to Jeff for him to try. He found a book he wanted and pressed the 1-Click button, whereupon the program asked him a confirming question! The programmers had converted his one-click interface into a two-click interface.

The biggest drawback, of course, is that you immediately scare away all survivors, and your only remaining users will be apologists. This seriously skews the nature and quality of your feedback, condemning you to a clientele of technoid apologists, which is a relatively small segment. This is one reason why so few personal-computer software-product makers have successfully crossed over into mass markets.

The fact that these measures are objective is reassuring to everyone. Objective and quantitative measure is highly respected by both programmers and businesspeople. The fact that these measures are usually ineffective in producing successful products tends to get lost in the shuffle.

Generally, programmers aren't thrilled about the iterative method because it means extra work for them. Typically, it's managers new to technology who like the iterative process because it relieves them of having to perform rigorous planning, thinking, and product due diligence

Most people who are paid to use a tool feel constrained not to complain about that tool, but it doesn't stop them from feeling frustrated and unhappy about it.

For example, many software dynasties have been established on the backs of very young, very inexperienced programmers. They were likely given a free hand with programming issues, and the pairing of immense responsibility with immense authority can often be a crucible for creating greatness. The same forces apply in interaction design. If someone is given the responsibility for product quality, and she is given authority equal to it, she will often rise to the challenge regardless of her experience. If you take a suitable person and give her full control over the quality and behavior of a product, you will have a much, much better product than if you don't.

The Inmates Are Running the Asylum, by

There is a lot of obsessive behavior in Silicon Valley about time to market. It is frequently asserted that shipping a product right now is far better than shipping it later.

programmers believe that their own imperatives of construction simplicity and ease of acquisition—of prewritten source code in their case—take precedence over any suggestions made by others.

The time it will take to finish a programming project is twice as long as the time you've allotted for it.

Because the software-creation process is out of control, the high-tech industry must bring its process to heel, or else it will continue to put the blame on ordinary users while ever-bigger machines sit dead in the water.

In September 1997, while conducting fleet maneuvers in the Atlantic, the USS Yorktown, one of the Navy's new Aegis guided-missile cruisers, stopped dead in the water. A Navy technician, while calibrating an on-board fuel valve, entered a zero into one of the shipboard management computers, a Pentium Pro running Windows NT. The program attempted to divide another number by that zero—a mathematically undefined operation—which resulted in a complete crash of the entire shipboard control system.

Software experts are—of necessity—comfortable with high-cognitive-friction interaction. They pride themselves on their ability to work in spite of its adversity. Normal humans, who are the new users of these products, lack the expertise to judge whether this cognitive friction is avoidable.

The obnoxious behavior and obscure interaction that software-based products exhibit is institutionalizing what I call "software apartheid":

It's cheaper to put an entire microprocessor in your car key, microwave, or cell phone than it is to put in discrete chips and electronic components. Thus, a new technical economy drives the design of the product.

One of my colleagues in the cellular-telephone business was complaining about how the engineers had made cell phones hard to use by packing in so many rarely used features. She said that cell phones were "wet dogs." When I inquired about her metaphor, she explained, "You have to really love a wet dog a lot to want to carry it around.

Design Is a Big Word

When the creators of software-based products examine their handiwork, they overlook how bad it is. Instead, they see its awesome power and flexibility. They see how rich the product is in features and functions. They ignore how excruciatingly difficult it is to use, how many mind-numbing hours it takes to learn, or how it diminishes and degrades the people

The key to solving the problem is interaction design before programming.

At times it’s as if the Silicon Valley inmates are running the VC asylum. But what might seem like unicorn-crazed chaos from the outside looking in is actually carefully structured.

A place where you're the sane one Where the inmates run the asylum We let them think they are in charge It's so funny how easy it is To lie to them.

Managers know that software development follows Parkinson's Law: Work will expand to fill the time allotted to it. If you are in the software business, perhaps you are familiar with a corollary to Parkinson called the Ninety-Ninety Rule, attributed to Tom Cargill of Bell Labs: "The first 90% of the code accounts for the first 90% of the development time. The remaining 10% of the code accounts for the other 90% of the development time." This self-deprecating rule says that when the engineers have written 90% of the code, they still don't know where they are! Management knows full well that the programmers won't hit their stated ship dates, regardless of what dates it specifies. The developers work best under pressure, and management uses the delivery date as the pressure-delivery vehicle.

All modern manufacturing disciplines have roots in preindustry except software, whose unique medium appeared well after industrialization was a fait accompli. Only programming comes directly from academia, where there are no time limits on research, student power is dirt cheap, profit is against the rules, and a failing program can be considered a very successful experiment. It's not a coincidence that Microsoft, IBM, Oracle, and other leading software companies reside in "campuses." Universities never have to make money, hit deadlines, or build desirable, useful products.

When today's executives regard programming the same as manufacturing, they imagine that reducing the cost of programming is similarly simple and effective. Unfortunately, those rules don't apply anymore.

What's more, the only available economic upside comes from making your product or service more desirable by improving its quality, and you can't do that by reducing the money you spend designing or programming

In all other construction disciplines, engineers plan a construction strategy that craftsmen execute. Engineers don't build bridges; ironworkers do. Only in software is the engineer tasked with actually building the product. Only in software is the "ironworker" tasked with determining how the product will be constructed. Only in software are these two tasks performed concurrently instead of sequentially. But companies that build software seem totally unaware of the anomaly.

To err is human; to really screw up, you need a computer

Remember that the primary definition of “asylum” is “a place of refuge.” One of the nobler aspirations of a workplace should be that it’s a place of refuge where people are free to create, build, and grow. Why not let the inmates run the asylum?

We can create powerful and pleasurable software-based products by the simple expedient of designing our computer-based products before we build them.

It follows that there are two ways to increase your profitability: Either reduce your costs or increase your revenues. In the old economy, reducing your costs worked best. In the new economy, increasing your revenue works much, much better.

Change is impossible until senior business executives realize that software problems are not technical issues, but are significant business issues.

Communications can be precise and exacting while still being tragically wrong.

It is easy to see how, in a world as devoid of meaning as the one that all of these fictional characters inhabit - a world modeled closely on the real modern world - madness is both a legitimate response and an effective challenge to the superficial sanity of the social order and historical process…only the person out of step with society has an appropriate vantage point from which to view its failings; only the person who fails to obey the institutions that mandate certain behaviors can appreciate their rigidity and the consequences of nonconformity. And only those who are victims of the system can bring about real reforms in it. Only the inmates can run the asylum - and, as much of the best experimental fiction of recent years suggests, only the inmates should.