The process of software design is often broken up into software design and software implementation. Like all forms of organization and classification, it's inherently incorrect and misleading. It's also necessary for an intelligent conversation on software.
In many of the software projects I've worked on, there has been a tension between these two parts. Very often the roles are separated out and worked on separately, when in a deep sense they are inseparable. The separation of work into design and implementation, architect and foreman, brings about a great danger. If the architect doesn't understand the material and structures houses are built with and the foreman does not understand the purpose of the architect's design, not only will there be conflict, but a chance for holistic creativity is lost. Innovation often requires mastery of both halves.
In popular thought, business people are often guilty of this dilemma. There are many stories of business people who have an idea for the next great website. They only they need to get a programmer to implement their idea. All the hard work to them seems done. The business people are caught unaware of how software was made in practice and become frustrated. Not aware that software creation must be part of the creative process, their projects fail.
Directing programmers is difficult, because software design isn't problem solving. It is problem avoidance. You can ask a programmer to solve a problem, but very often instead she will find a way to avoid it all together. The path of least resistance is often the best and not the one the designer had in mind.
Insert Taoist quote here about how programmers are like water or something like that...
-Laozi
Many have gone so far as to completely discredit the design part of the process. Many stories about internet startups are about how they stumbled into their niche. All they had were quality team of programmers and software designers. They went where their code took them. To some degree this is true. The book, Do More Faster, suggests that ideas are much more worthless than people believe. This is the over arching theme of its first section. Despite the ridiculous name of the book, I recommend it.
The greatest master of both implementation and design might be Frank Llyod Wright. His writings about architecture stress the importance of knowing the whole process of construction. Wright devoted a large amount of his time to understanding the construction methods and materials of his houses and this reflected in his teaching. His college of architecture was known for making students do menial work like carpentry and even farming on top of standard architectural education. Ayn Rand's Howard Roark was a construction worker for much of The Fountainhead. His understanding of the building materials and construction techniques allowed him to innovate where his competing architect's ideas stagnated.
