Like we don’t have enough languages to work with in software development. There’s the language of the business, there’s the jargon we use, there’s the handful of programming languages. Things like domain-specific languages (DSLs) are gaining in popularity. Do we really need another language? Did I really need to use a rhetorical question just there?

Actually, I don’t know. I’m exploring this in my mind right now. Here’s what I’m thinking so far.

I tried to explain the problem I think we face when we’re in the envisioning process of creating software – agreeing to fulfill a fairly specific outcome on a budget without being certain what the final result will really need.

I know that more experienced software developers can use their previous projects as frames of reference from which to cull an estimate for a new project. We know generally how long it takes for us to design the code, write and test the code, assemble and deploy the code. We know what parts to put under the covers that we’ll need when we find out something has to change. We know what parts to put in that the customer never would have thought to ask for but are essential to having it run well. And so we can look at a new project and make off-the-cuff estimates.

But we face all sorts of complications going down this path. Rapidly changing business concerns. Parkinson’s law. Minor catastrophes, like having a key developer leave the team early in a project.

And I’m not convinced that either traditional or agile developers really have cornered the market on a way to get the customer to really understand what he or she is buying, how much it will cost, and when they will have it before he or she makes the commitment to begin the project.

I’m going to spend a little time reading up Steve McConnell’s works and seeing what I can apply here. But Steve focuses largely on software estimation. That’s only half the picture. The other part is getting a clear vision back into the customer’s head about exactly what will be produced so that everyone is happy and calls the outcome successful.