Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
methodology as the software factory. One guidebook from 1969 for
managers captured the essence of this adversarial approach to program-
mer management by describing the successful computer manager as the
“one whose grasp of the job is refl ected in simple work units that are in
the hand[s] of simple programmers; not one who, with control lost, is
held in contempt by clever programmers dangerously maintaining control
on his behalf.”
32
An uncritical reading of this and other similar management perspec-
tives on the process of software development, with their confi dent claims
about the value and effi cacy of various performance metrics, develop-
ment methodologies, and programming languages, might suggest that
Kraft and Greenbaum are correct in their assessments. In fact, many of
these methodologies do indeed represent “elaborate efforts” that “are
being made to develop ways of gradually eliminating programmers, or
at least reduce their average skill levels, required training, experience,
and so on.”
33
Their authors would be the fi rst to admit it. A more critical
reading of this literature, however, indicates that the claims of many
management theorists represent imagined ideals more than current
reality. Writing in 1971, the occupational sociologist Enid Mumford
actually lauded data processing as an “area where the philosophy of
job reducers and job simplifi ers—the followers of Taylor—has not been
accepted.”
34
The fact that the software crisis has survived a half century of sup-
posed silver bullet solutions suggests that Kraft may have overlooked an
essential component of this history. What is missing from his analysis is
the perspective on the software labor process provided by the many
companies that recognized that computer programming was, at least to
a certain extent, a creative and intellectually demanding occupation, and
that in their management of software personnel stressed “the importance
of a judicious balance between control and individual freedom.”
35
Kraft
implied that most corporations adopted a hierarchical system of manage-
ment aimed at eliminating worker autonomy. He ignored the many
alternative methodologies that were proposed and adopted in this period.
Like his mentors Braverman and Noble, he overemphasized the willing-
ness and ability of the managerial “class,” which he treats as a mono-
lithic and homogeneous category, rather than as the diverse group
of individuals operating in different social, political, and technical envi-
ronments, to impose unilaterally their routinization agenda on the pro-
gramming labor force. Many programmers were skilled workers who
vigorously pursued their own professional advancement; it is clear that
