Method or Madness?

How do we distinguish order from randomness?  Redundancy.  Patterns.  The first dice roll is a 5?  Probably random.  The next roll is also a 5?  And so is the roll after that, and the roll after that?  These dice might be loaded.

Efficiency often resembles randomness, specifically because it minimizes redundancy. Rowers pulling in unison are clearly not acting at random; but if you sit backstage at a theater, and see people running around like mad, pulling ropes or switching costumes, how do you know whether their actions are random or well-coordinated?  The only way for a layperson to tell is to observe the result: Does the system produce a show worth watching?

The resemblance between efficiency and randomness has a terrible consequence: Random processes, in the trappings of work, easily give a misleading impression of efficiency. When you see chat and email flying past you—vaguely plausible code and documents whose worth you cannot directly assess—the team might be firing on all cylinders. Too often, the chatter is mostly noise: full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Folks may be hard at work, but pulling in different directions. A few might even put on a deliberate show of “productivity theater.”

Conceptual integrity is the most important consideration in system design. It is better to have a system…reflect one set of design ideas, than to have one that contains many good but independent and uncoordinated ideas.

—Fred Brooks, The Mythical Man Month, 1975

Today I am more convinced than ever. Conceptual integrity is central to product quality…These principles are by no means limited to software systems, but to the design of any complex construct.

—Fred Brooks, The Mythical Man Month after 20 Years, 1995

How can you tell, amid the commotion, whether the system is working? Is it efficient, or insidiously random? The only way to be sure is to observe the result. Ask yourself, and answer honestly: Are you clearly and tangibly producing anything of value?