There is no single right answer to any non-trivial problem in software engineering. So, if multiple correct solutions exist, how do you decide which is best? It’s difficult to determine which is best because “best” is highly subjective and deeply personal — your opinion is formed from your individual collection of experiences, strengths & weaknesses, and values on related aspects like simplicity, maintainability, & scalability.
对于软件工程中的任何非凡问题，没有唯一正确的答案。 因此，如果存在多个正确的解决方案，那么您如何确定最好的呢？ 很难确定哪个最佳，因为“最佳”具有很高的主观性和深厚的个人性-您的意见是由您的经验，优点和缺点以及有关简单性，可维护性和可伸缩性等相关方面的价值观的个人集合所形成的。
It’s these internal values that make all of this so tricky. Imagine a spectrum with engineering excellence at one end and business needs at the other. Both elements are required for a project to be successful, and operating at either extreme can be detrimental to the other. As an example, making too many quick-twitch fixes to address urgent business needs can have significant long-term impact on the quality of the code base or system maintainability; conversely, focusing too deeply on engineering excellence can lead to over-investment in areas or competitive disadvantages from being slow to market.
这些内部价值使所有这些变得如此棘手。 想象一下，一方面具有出色的工程设计，另一方面具有业务需求的频谱。 一个项目的成功需要这两个要素，而在任何一个极端运行都会对另一个不利。 例如，进行过多的快速修复来解决紧急的业务需求可能会对代码库的质量或系统可维护性产生长期的重大影响。 相反，过分专注于卓越的工程设计会导致在某些领域的过度投资，或者由于投放市场缓慢而导致竞争劣势。
Understanding this spectrum — and having awareness of where you and your colleagues lie on it — can help your team to be more pragmatic.
了解这一频谱，并了解您和您的同事所处的位置，可以帮助您的团队更加务实。
Awareness of this spectrum alone isn’t going to do you any favors in resolving conflict from perceived disconnects between you and co-workers, though. I’ve found myself in design/requirements stalemates many times, and I’ve used the spectrum as a way to visualize my frustration.
但是，仅了解这种频谱并不能帮您解决因您与同事之间的脱节而产生的冲突。 我发现自己多次陷入设计/需求僵局，并且已将频谱用作可视化我的挫败感的一种方式。
“You see, I live over here on one end of the spectrum,” I’d say, “and my colleague operates here, at the other end. We can’t agree on scope, and we aren’t getting started or making any progress as a result.”
“你看，我住在频谱的一端，”我说，“而我的同事在另一端工作。 我们不能在范围上达成共识，也不会因此开始或取得任何进展。”
The problem with the visualization as a tool for conflict resolution is those pesky personal values. Neither of us thinks we’re advocating for a solution that would be in the unhealthy extremes of the spectrum. The person in the engineering excellence camp just believes that business value is generated by following all the best engineering principles and creating scalable, high-performing, resilient applications whereas business needs nation wants quick delivery and maximum responsiveness to meet the ever-changing needs of its customers.
可视化作为解决冲突的工具存在的问题是那些令人讨厌的个人价值观。 我们俩都不认为我们正在提倡一种解决方案，该解决方案将在不健康的极端情况下出现。 工程卓越营的人只是相信，遵循所有最佳工程原理并创建可扩展，高性能，弹性的应用程序可产生业务价值，而业务需求国家则希望快速交付和最大的响应能力来满足其不断变化的需求顾客。
So, how do you find compromise when the source of conflict is so visceral?
那么，当冲突的根源如此内在时，您如何找到妥协呢？
Let’s see if we can steal a page from the Goldilocks playbook. She’s got a knack for identifying the undesirable ends of a spectrum before settling into a satisfying sweet spot. If you and your team or colleague(s) can’t agree on the scope of a solution, can you agree on what it shouldn’t be?
让我们看看是否可以从Goldilocks剧本中窃取页面。 她有一个技巧，可以在确定满意的最佳点之前确定频谱的不良末端。 如果您和您的团队或同事不同意解决方案的范围，您是否可以同意不应该的解决方案？
What’s a reasonable solution that everybody agrees is over-engineered, and what’s the fastest, but perhaps short-sighted, thing you could do? What’s the effort required for each approach, and what are the risks or consequences?
每个人都认为过合理的解决方案是合理的，什么是最快的，但也许是短视的，您可以做什么？ 每种方法需要付出什么努力？风险或后果是什么？
Just to be clear, I’m not suggesting to simply compare different proposals by plotting them on the spectrum— that probably won’t get you anywhere. Instead, work collaboratively to come up with bad solutions that lean too far in both directions. Find agreement by identifying undesirable characteristics of these options in the unhealthy parts of the spectrum.
只是要清楚一点，我不建议通过在频谱上标绘不同的建议来比较它们，这可能不会给您带来任何帮助。 相反，应协同工作以提出在两个方向上都过分适用的不良解决方案。 通过确定频谱中不健康部分中这些选项的不良特性来找到共识。
Still not able to find compromise? It’s probably time to bring in a 3rd party, preferably a stakeholder. Show them your spectrum and explain the tradeoffs that exist at the opposite ends, then present the “real” options that are on the table and allow the stakeholder to decide.
仍然找不到妥协？ 现在可能是引入第三者，最好是利益相关者的时候。 向他们展示您的频谱，并解释在相反两端存在的权衡，然后展示表格中的“实际”选项，并允许利益相关者决定。
The whole activity is an exercise in pragmatism. How can two parties with equal but conflicting opinions find common ground? The key is to calibrate and remove as much subjectivity as you can. By acknowledging the necessity of both aspects — engineering excellence and needs of the business — and agreeing on the “bounds” of the spectrum, you create a framework for identifying the region for compromise. That’s your sweet spot. That’s likely where your “best” solution should be.
整个活动是实用主义的练习。 意见相同但矛盾的两个政党如何找到共同点？ 关键是要尽可能地校准和消除主观性。 通过认识到这两个方面的必要性–卓越的工程设计和业务需求–并就频谱的“界限”达成共识，您可以创建一个框架来识别需要折衷的区域。 那是你的好地方。 这可能是您“最佳”解决方案所在的位置。
翻译自: https://medium.com/swlh/goldilocks-and-the-spectrum-of-engineering-excellence-vs-business-needs-6480ad747515
相关资源：四史答题软件安装包exe