3 ms·
I don't disagree with the gist of your comment but time to market is generally massively undervalued (and particularly by technical folk). It's more often than
by dreamfactory2 11y ago
I don't disagree with the gist of your comment but time to market is generally massively undervalued (and particularly by technical folk). It's more often than not a great reason for taking on tech debt (not to mention that early releases also constrain scope to smaller chunks).
- lumpypua 11y agoI totally agree that time to market is hugely important. The dynamics of getting to market are complicated and I don't agree that tech folk undermine them to any special degree. If you're an engineer with a few years experience, chances are you've been smacked by being too conservative or too loose with tech debt. Good contextual use of debt is a key part of the "senior" in any senior engineer. I'm happy to be "sloppy" and fast at the right moments. My experience has been that business people value time to market, but only if they can offload the costs to engineering by taking on tech debt. When asked to put their money where their mouth is and pay for more engineers or cut scope, often the business side will balk. It's an annoyance when non-technical leadership perennially sees tech debt as a way to get a free lunch. Ain't no free lunches.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]