>>Software development artistry/lack of standardization - there's a consequence of that which is not always recognized. In a lot of small custom software projects, and even some medium-sized ones there is a core of a few people, perhaps just one, who know how it really works.
Agreed. Also true of rocket science and the Manhattan project. Surrounding such people with huge head counts may give comfort to customers signing checks but in the end success is built around and reliant on delivery by a few key players every time IME. As an example, KG used to remind us frequently of the debacle of the Obamacare website: built with massive headcounts and committees and all the modern trappings of serious software engineering, the result was a debacle. In "Atlas Shrugged" style assistance then was sought from a very small group of geeks who would have been shunned by the original teams but who solved the shortcomings in short order. Eventually the truth will out on that, not that anybody wants an antisocial geek hero but maybe we need to lose our prejudices and value results more.
"... They ne'er cared for us
yet: suffer us to famish, and their store-houses
crammed with grain; make edicts for usury, to
support usurers; repeal daily any wholesome act
established against the rich, and provide more
piercing statutes daily, to chain up and restrain
the poor. If the wars eat us not up, they will; and
there's all the love they bear us."
-- Shakespeare: Coriolanus, Act 1, scene 1