Molecular Discussions

Trying to make architectural decisions as a team one can run into a problem of molecular discussions. It's a phenomenon typical for very unexperienced architects - not to make decisions and to try that damn thing but to discuss all the possible aspects and hazards and even the smallest thing - a molecule - in front in order to avoid mistakes.

Software always has errors. The question is, how robust is your software if facing errors. But there are always errors, and to try to discuss them all away even before starting doing things hands-on and checking things out will lead to the fear of beginning at all!

The second system effect of Fred Brooks is something similar but expects that one starts at all. With molecular discussions we have the problem that even no code gets written but the very project noise gets produced instead.

As human beeings we love it to dicsuss - we love to hear ourselves speaking. It's normal if it gets followed by doing. If it doesn't stop - don't break the mulecule into atoms, stop it and decide without democracy - what really counts is the result!

Is the Grim Reaper standing behind us whenever we make a mistake in a software? Sure, if it would lead to the loss of human lifes or the world instability. But is it always the case? I bet more than 90 percent of us will never produce such a software. So why produce overkill thinking the world will go down if you make a mistake? Is it a sort of megalomania? Or just a fear to decide or to do?

I say NO to molecular discussions in software. I love to check things out instead.