4 ms·

What's the alternative? Overfunded waterfall-style development on fewer things nobody wants? The lean startup model seems like it works, even outside of tech.

by Felz 8y ago

What's the alternative? Overfunded waterfall-style development on fewer things nobody wants? The lean startup model seems like it works, even outside of tech. Even yes, in medicine that can kill as a failure mode. Drug development, for example, consists of trying a bunch of plausible things. (And worked until the effective, simple chemical space was exhausted.)

lainga 8y ago
...and moving a very small fraction of those drugs into long FDA trials.
- 6cd6beb 8y ago
  I've been in a couple of those trials. They make it very clear that the drug has already been tested extensively and also do fairly extensive testing on you to make sure your vitals are within the "normal" range. I got a very clear impression that they're not throwing pills at the wall to see which one sticks. I'm also working at a startup that's had three names and just as many products, funded by a VC who's just going to start another one with most of the same people whether this one works or not. It doesn't matter one bit if this startup fails. The drug was pretty clearly indicated to work by the time a person swallowed a pill. Different worlds.
filleduchaos 8y ago
Drug development certainly does not consist of trying a bunch of plausible things on the public (or even on small carefully picked groups of human trial subjects, not until after extensive tests and trials have been exhausted). And thank fuck it doesn't. Besides, it's rather disingenuous to act as though development falls on a binary between "overfunded waterfall-style development" and the current mess at many shops.
- Felz 8y ago
  My apologies if my comment came off as disingenuous or overly binary. I'd agree you could take minimal MVPs too far. (Also, the phrase "minimal MVP" is RAS syndrome but how would I say it otherwise?) What I haven't seen is "the current mess at many shops", and I'd be interested to hear about your experiences. I've only ever experienced failure by overplanning personally, and the stark divide between progress in things that can be cheaply iterated on and things that are expensive, preplanned disasters seems important to me. This leads me to naturally think that if I wanted to make progress in e.g. medicine I should start by finding out how to make it cheap and iterable, rather than come up with comprehensive, well-funded plans.

by Felz 8y ago

lainga 8y ago

...and moving a very small fraction of those drugs into long FDA trials.

6cd6beb 8y ago
I've been in a couple of those trials. They make it very clear that the drug has already been tested extensively and also do fairly extensive testing on you to make sure your vitals are within the "normal" range. I got a very clear impression that they're not throwing pills at the wall to see which one sticks. I'm also working at a startup that's had three names and just as many products, funded by a VC who's just going to start another one with most of the same people whether this one works or not. It doesn't matter one bit if this startup fails. The drug was pretty clearly indicated to work by the time a person swallowed a pill. Different worlds.

filleduchaos 8y ago

Drug development certainly does not consist of trying a bunch of plausible things on the public (or even on small carefully picked groups of human trial subjects, not until after extensive tests and trials have been exhausted). And thank fuck it doesn't. Besides, it's rather disingenuous to act as though development falls on a binary between "overfunded waterfall-style development" and the current mess at many shops.

Felz 8y ago
My apologies if my comment came off as disingenuous or overly binary. I'd agree you could take minimal MVPs too far. (Also, the phrase "minimal MVP" is RAS syndrome but how would I say it otherwise?) What I haven't seen is "the current mess at many shops", and I'd be interested to hear about your experiences. I've only ever experienced failure by overplanning personally, and the stark divide between progress in things that can be cheaply iterated on and things that are expensive, preplanned disasters seems important to me. This leads me to naturally think that if I wanted to make progress in e.g. medicine I should start by finding out how to make it cheap and iterable, rather than come up with comprehensive, well-funded plans.