I think this is a fairly sound assessment of both the designer and engineer psychologies. In my experience, engineers frequently fail to understand that design is the fundamental relationship between the consumer and your product, and as such, should be considered of equal importance to the quality of the code. From the perspective of the layperson who actually has to USE the software, an ugly or clumsy design may as well be a critical coding bug. And therein lies the problem: some engineers are incapable (or unconcerned) with understanding the psychologies of other people despite the fact that they are developing products that will ostensibly be used by other people. Engineers would do well to learn that code is the language of computers, and aesthetics is the language of the user.
I think tech start-ups could benefit by taking cues from architecture, where the relationship between designers and engineers is reversed, design having priority over engineering. Serious architects can go so far as to believe that design has priority over even physics -- and sometimes with good reason. Many designs have been declared by engineers to be "impossible" only to be successfully built. Usually after the architect yells enough. Of course, despite being notoriously difficult, such architects are bound to have immense value for engineers with enough creativity to execute their ambitious plans. And I'm sure that the engineers love the challenge of working with them. At any rate, it would be interesting to see the results of talented coders being challenged by the best designers in this manner.
I agree with this, and sense some conflation between the terms 'concept' and 'idea' in this argument -- at least so far as it applies to the execution vs. ideas debate. Some seem to believe that the role of ideas in the process of a start-up is limited to the initial concept. But this is like saying that the ideas in a screenplay are limited to those contained in the two sentence 'high concept' that spurred the project, with the execution being the writer's typing and grammar.
However, it's not altogether clear just what execution means if it is necessarily divorced from ideas. Aren't all new features, enhancements and marketing campaigns driven by ideas and then carried out by technicians? Or can successful execution be attributed simply to coders writing code? By this view (which, granted, is an exaggeration) success can be achieved by simply filling a room full of contractors and assuming they will work something out.
Rather than being at odds, ideas and execution seem more like mutual components of the division of labor: one cannot work without the other, and both are participants of every stage of the process. However, it doesn't follow from this fact that ideas and execution are equally responsible for success. I view a venture's success primarily as a function of consistently applied creativity, imagination and discipline. Luck is a necessary too, but certainly cannot be executed.
While I recognize the importance of ideas and technical execution, I would argue that vision and imagination are scarcer, more valuable resources than technical proficiency and practical know how. After all, development needs can be fulfilled by contractors in a pinch, but the same cannot be said for the role of a visionary -- a fact may explain why Apple continues to compensate Jonathan Ives so handsomely when his pay could be used alternatively to hire dozens of young hacker savants and electrical engineers.
How many highly successful startups have outsourced their development to contractors ? My guess is practically none.
I agree with you that ideas are needed throughout the process. In fact one of the points that certain people here seem unable to grasp is that software development is itself a creative activity that requires not only linear logical thinking but also continuous inspiration to find a good path through the solution space. It is not the equivalent of hammering nails to carry out someone else's grand design.
