Patterns of engineering disasters

An incomplete collection of failed rewrites, refactors, and other engineering mishaps

Click here to skip the introduction and go straight to the links.

Studying catastrophic project failures

Many engineers, myself included, like to believe engineering is a fundamentally rational discipline. We spend our work hours carefully implementing complicated algorithms, instrumenting tests to validate program execution, and weighing technical tradeoffs to achieve the optimal outcome. Given that everyone building technology should be imminently logical, it’s easy to assume that engineering disasters are mostly a failure of imagination and forethought. “If only the team had anticipated these potential edge cases then the execution would have been flawless,” etc.

The longer I do software engineering, the more I realize the many messy human emotions involved. Developing technical projects is like any other enterprise undertaken by a group of people working together—ego, ideological stances, cognitive biases, mismanagement, and politics are all irrational factors involved in the process.

I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to say that the worst engineering projects all boil down to human drama. Personal experience and horror stories from friends and industry all point to this pattern. The ultra-rational stereotype of engineers does more harm than good in these situations because no one can accept or admit that the project is a trainwreck. Perhaps it was originally started with the wrong motivations, promised unrealistic deliverables, or had so much scope creep pork-barrelled into it that it was doomed to fail. Engineering disasters can happen even if the workplace does not have a toxic environment, though having a toxic culture probably generates even more than your average amount of engineering crises. And all these initiatives end up accruing enormous unanticipated costs along the way, both in terms of the project itself as well as the emotional toll on the team.

Below is an ongoing list of mishaps and crises in software engineering teams. The stories demonstrate that well-intentioned and rational people can end up in emotionally intense, stressful situations. Every time I re-read them, I am reminded to be humble, to hope that I can gain some kernels of wisdom to help diffuse and de-escalate future disasters I find myself in. I try to internalize these learnings so that I can be kind to myself and my teammates if and when a project trainwreck is unavoidable. It’s helpful to realize that prestigious companies with seasoned veteran engineers are not immune to engineering disasters. Neither are brilliant individual contributors who, having survived one disaster, may find themselves in a different kind of chaotic mess in the future.

The biggest reason I think that engineering disasters happen so reliably, eventually appearing at least once in an individual’s career, is the seductive danger of “leverage points” thinking—in other words, hoping that a relatively small amount of effort can cause massive changes in complex systems. We software engineers are particularly susceptible to this thinking. If only we had used the right architecture, if only we can quickly execute this rewrite or refactor, all our painful problems will be solved. All of the stories in the collection have some element of this wishful thinking, causing people to dig in their heels and refuse to change course. As Donella H. Meadows perfectly sums up in the conclusion of her essay,

Magical leverage points are not easily accessible, even if we know where they are and which direction to push on them. There are no cheap tickets to mastery. You have to work hard at it, whether that means rigorously analyzing a system or rigorously casting off your own paradigms and throwing yourself into the humility of Not Knowing. In the end, it seems that mastery has less to do with pushing leverage points than it does with strategically, profoundly, madly letting go.

Here is the same sentiment again, from Frederick Brooks’ paper No Silver Bullet from 1986:

Not only are there no silver bullets now in view, the very nature of software makes it unlikely that there will be any - no inventions that will do for software productivity, reliability, and simplicity what electronics, transistors, large-scale integration did for computer hardware. […] The hardest single part of building a software system is deciding precisely what to build. No other part of the conceptual work is so difficult as establishing the detailed technical requirements, including all the interfaces to people, to machines, and to other software systems. No other part of the work so cripples the resulting system if done wrong. No other part is more difficult to rectify later. […] The central question in how to improve the software art centers, as it always has, on people.

List of engineering disasters

This article was last updated on 1/18/2022. v1 is 822 words and took 4.5 hours to write and edit.

Simulated Annealing

A newsletter on software, creativity, and good books. Get new posts sent to your inbox.

powered by TinyLetter