The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.
What types of software products have you worked on: desktop applications, traditional web, single-page applications, embedded, mobile, mainframe?
How about organizations: private for-profit, government, non-profit?
How about domains: finance, retail, defense, health care, entertainment, banking, law enforcement, intelligence, real estate, etc. etc. etc.?
Given that the realm of “software development” is currently huge (and probably expanding as you read this), how logical is it that someone (or even a group) could regulate what is acceptable process and practice? I won’t say that it would be impossible to come up with one unified set of regulations that would fit all circumstances, but I’m very comfortable estimating the likelihood as a minute fraction of a percent. If the entire realm were broken down into smaller groupings, the chance might increase, but the resulting glut of regulations would become an administrative nightmare and still wouldn’t address those circumstances that aren’t in the list above but are on the horizon.
Nonetheless, people continue to float the idea of regulation.
Last fall, Bob Martin floated the idea of government regulation as a reaction to the healthcare.gov fiasco. That would be the same government whose contracting regulations contributed to the fiasco in the first place, correct? That would be the same government that has legally mandated Agile for Department of Defense contracts? Legally mandated agility just seems to sound a bit suspicious. As Jeff Sutherland noted “Many in Washington are still trying to figure out what exactly that means but it is a start”. A start, for sure, but the start of what?
Ken Schwaber’s blog post “Can Software Developers Meet the Need?” takes a different approach. Schwaber proposes that:
A software profession governing body is needed. We need to formalize and regulate the skills, techniques, and practices needed to build different types of software capabilities. On one side, there is the danger of squeezing the creativity out of software development by unknowledgeable bureaucrats. On the other side is the danger of the increasingly vital software our society relies on failing critically.
We can either create such a governance capability, or the governments will legislate it after a particularly disastrous failure.
Call me a cynic, but I’m betting that the amount of bureaucratic squeezing that would result from this would far outweigh any gain in quality.
Most of the organization types listed above are already on the hook for harm caused by their IT operations; just ask Target and Knight Capital (don’t ask the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services). Is it more likely that a committee, whether private or public, can better manage the quality of software across all the various categories listed above? Could they be more likely to keep up with change in the industry? Color me doubtful.