5 ms·

The Product Development Triathlon

100 points by keithnz 10y ago

signa11 10y ago
from the comment section in the article: > Part of the key is letting go of the idea of experiments "failing". An experiment only fails if you fail to learn from it. Experiments should turn out the way you expect half the time, if you want to maximize learning. i guess the principle being propounded is that of 'fail early and fail fast' or be wrong as fast as you can. because, to be wrong as fast as you can implies that you sign up for aggressive and rapid learning. more importantly, failure is a manifestation of learning and exploration. if you are not experiencing failure then you are making a far worse mistake... as in science, experiments should be considered fact-finding missions that over a period of time inch towards greater understanding. which implies, that _any_ outcome is a good outcome, because it yields new information. if your experiment proved that your initial hypothesis was wrong, better know it sooner than later. unfortunately, this is easier in a lab, than in business :(
- ben_jones 10y ago
  I look at it from the perspective that Google, Facebook, Microsoft, etc., are all giant tombs of knowledge. I mean can you imagine all the engineering solutions at Google only in random memos, emails, and water cooler talks? Even if you fuck up colossally as long as you add SOMETHING to that tomb it's contributing to the company.
pedalpete 10y ago
Maybe something is going around today. I just published a similar article about how a start-up is not like a marathon, but more like the tour de france https://medium.com/@pedalpete/a-startup-isnt-a-marathon-it-s-the-tour-de-france-a36d0754b6c2 https://medium.com/@pedalpete/a-startup-isnt-a-marathon-it-s...
- ben_jones 10y ago
  Full of drugs, male-dominant, and if you removed all the cheaters you wouldn't know the name of the one guy left?
- uola 10y ago
  I'm not sure all these analogies are that useful, the concepts are fairly simple after all. If I would to make one though, I would say that running a startup is like sailing. You're trying to get somewhere as fast as possible, but the fastest route might not be a straight line. You need a well tuned team that can adapt to changes in the environment quickly. Going fast highly dependent on external factors and fighting the elements will break your team, your boat or both. Of course that's only for running the company. Developing code in startup are more like running a kitchen. You need to get a group of random people to produce a good product under intense pressure. Everyone is responsible for their own area and need to produce good quality in sync with everyone else, but management is ultimately responsible for the quality of the product. But as I said, I'm not sure how useful this is. If people just realize that running a startup or developing a product is mostly like organizing any successful project and not some special thing that you learn solely from blog posts and venture capitalists. PS. Things like the waterfall model is often useful if you're optimizing for getting a specific product out. Startups often struggle to get anything out or establishing themselves in the market, which is why it's useful to do things differently. That doesn't mean startup style projects are suited for every industry which seems to have become a widespread misconception.
joshwa 10y ago
Mods, please add Kent Beck to the title
- e28eta 10y ago
  It looks like you've been downvoted, but I think it's notable that Kent Beck, the creator of Extreme Programming, has written something that includes: "what if those waterfall folks aren’t wrong, what if they are solving a different problem than I’m solving?"
  - wyldfire 10y ago
    I thought you were paraphrasing. That's exactly what he wrote! This is an interesting article IMO. I don't think many of the organizations I've worked in are mature enough to shift their process as they cycle through these phases, though.
- dang 10y ago
  HN tends not to include author names in titles.
  - joshwa 10y ago
    I only suggested it since "facebook.com" as the domain is not really sufficient to indicate the prominence of the author, which what makes the article credible/interesting...
    - dang 10y ago
      I get that, and you're right. But this is one of those obscure tradeoffs. Sometimes the author's name gets a post onto the front page, an active discussion gets going, and we can safely remove the name from the title without damaging it.
y0ssar1an 10y ago
The Conjoined Triangles of Success
gavinpc 10y ago
Kent Beck discovers the S curve. Of which Peter Norvig says > You could say that Google makes its living by finding problems that have this kind of shape [0] Kent Beck says, > I hope I’ve convinced you that this really is an awesome awesome stick. No, not without an example. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1O3ikmTEdA&t=22m55s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1O3ikmTEdA&t=22m55s
jauco 10y ago
Reminds me of David Andersons talk about risk profiles https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YBPa0FE4hRs https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YBPa0FE4hRs

100 points by keithnz 10y ago

from the comment section in the article: > Part of the key is letting go of the idea of experiments "failing". An experiment only fails if you fail to learn from it. Experiments should turn out the way you expect half the time, if you want to maximize learning. i guess the principle being propounded is that of 'fail early and fail fast' or be wrong as fast as you can. because, to be wrong as fast as you can implies that you sign up for aggressive and rapid learning. more importantly, failure is a manifestation of learning and exploration. if you are not experiencing failure then you are making a far worse mistake... as in science, experiments should be considered fact-finding missions that over a period of time inch towards greater understanding. which implies, that _any_ outcome is a good outcome, because it yields new information. if your experiment proved that your initial hypothesis was wrong, better know it sooner than later. unfortunately, this is easier in a lab, than in business :(

ben_jones 10y ago
I look at it from the perspective that Google, Facebook, Microsoft, etc., are all giant tombs of knowledge. I mean can you imagine all the engineering solutions at Google only in random memos, emails, and water cooler talks? Even if you fuck up colossally as long as you add SOMETHING to that tomb it's contributing to the company.

pedalpete 10y ago

Maybe something is going around today. I just published a similar article about how a start-up is not like a marathon, but more like the tour de france https://medium.com/@pedalpete/a-startup-isnt-a-marathon-it-s-the-tour-de-france-a36d0754b6c2 https://medium.com/@pedalpete/a-startup-isnt-a-marathon-it-s...

ben_jones 10y ago
Full of drugs, male-dominant, and if you removed all the cheaters you wouldn't know the name of the one guy left?
uola 10y ago
I'm not sure all these analogies are that useful, the concepts are fairly simple after all. If I would to make one though, I would say that running a startup is like sailing. You're trying to get somewhere as fast as possible, but the fastest route might not be a straight line. You need a well tuned team that can adapt to changes in the environment quickly. Going fast highly dependent on external factors and fighting the elements will break your team, your boat or both. Of course that's only for running the company. Developing code in startup are more like running a kitchen. You need to get a group of random people to produce a good product under intense pressure. Everyone is responsible for their own area and need to produce good quality in sync with everyone else, but management is ultimately responsible for the quality of the product. But as I said, I'm not sure how useful this is. If people just realize that running a startup or developing a product is mostly like organizing any successful project and not some special thing that you learn solely from blog posts and venture capitalists. PS. Things like the waterfall model is often useful if you're optimizing for getting a specific product out. Startups often struggle to get anything out or establishing themselves in the market, which is why it's useful to do things differently. That doesn't mean startup style projects are suited for every industry which seems to have become a widespread misconception.

joshwa 10y ago

Mods, please add Kent Beck to the title

e28eta 10y ago
It looks like you've been downvoted, but I think it's notable that Kent Beck, the creator of Extreme Programming, has written something that includes: "what if those waterfall folks aren’t wrong, what if they are solving a different problem than I’m solving?"
- wyldfire 10y ago
  I thought you were paraphrasing. That's exactly what he wrote! This is an interesting article IMO. I don't think many of the organizations I've worked in are mature enough to shift their process as they cycle through these phases, though.
dang 10y ago
HN tends not to include author names in titles.
- joshwa 10y ago
  I only suggested it since "facebook.com" as the domain is not really sufficient to indicate the prominence of the author, which what makes the article credible/interesting...
  - dang 10y ago
    I get that, and you're right. But this is one of those obscure tradeoffs. Sometimes the author's name gets a post onto the front page, an active discussion gets going, and we can safely remove the name from the title without damaging it.

y0ssar1an 10y ago

The Conjoined Triangles of Success

gavinpc 10y ago

Kent Beck discovers the S curve. Of which Peter Norvig says > You could say that Google makes its living by finding problems that have this kind of shape [0] Kent Beck says, > I hope I’ve convinced you that this really is an awesome awesome stick. No, not without an example. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1O3ikmTEdA&t=22m55s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1O3ikmTEdA&t=22m55s

jauco 10y ago

Reminds me of David Andersons talk about risk profiles https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YBPa0FE4hRs https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YBPa0FE4hRs