I asked for the reason, and it was indeed the performance.

It was just the diagrams in the original article that reminded me of this. It just didn't make any sense to me that one would "just solve" a problem at hand without considering other options.

But in my (15 years of) experience the "pi factor" is indeed quite accurate as there is always something surprising that comes up along the way, be it specification changes or technical issues.

I was new to the field (but not new to software development) and there was this small software team doing programming tasks for the game. The lead developer was concerned on my performance after a few months I was there.

I remember him drawing an image excatcly like the second picture in this article (an arrow going from A to B). He said that my performance was very poor, and then he drew another picture that was like the circle in the article.

The way I worked was searching for a solution, going wrong direction a few times, asking designers for more information and then eventually landing on a solution (that worked, and users like it).

But I was told this is wrong way of doing software. I was not supposed to ask advice from the users (because the team "knew better").

He also told me that a good software developer takes a task, solves it (goes from A to B), and then takes another task.

After a few weeks I was fired from that job.

To this day I'm still baffled by this. The company was really succesfull and everyone knew how to make software. It seemed like a very harsh environment. Is it like this in the top software companies everywhere? Like the super-pro-developers really just take a task and solve it without issues?