Software Development has taken a lot of inspiration from architecture. Seems to build stable buildings, you have to plan as much as possible beforehand. Once things are put in concrete, it is too late or very expensive to fix mistakes and bugs. In analogy most IT companies try to do a lot of planning before sitting down to code.

I believe they might have drawn the wrong analogy, though: the final piece of software is not like the building. The proper analogy for the software is the final plan the architect emits. Building the building is more like then running the completed software on the computer, it happens when the work of the architect is already done. To be sure, while building buildings or running software, you'll still notice the one or other flaw that you have to fix "on the fly". But that doesn't contradict the general notion.

Why does it matter? Because this misguided paradigm is stifling software development and turning it into an expensive and arduous chore. It is very difficult and therefore expensive to plan everything in software development beforehand.

Unfortunately I don't know much about how architects really go about drawing their plans. There might be some interesting lessons there. To be sure there has to be some structure (a building needs windows, doors, stairs, toilets, ...), but I suspect overall it is much more free form and creative than misguided software development. For now I just felt like throwing that thought snippet out there... Please comment.