His conclusion that "high quality software is cheaper to produce" neglects to mention any kind of time frame over which it actually becomes "cheaper". Over the

His conclusion that "high quality software is cheaper to produce" neglects to mention any kind of time frame over which it actually becomes "cheaper". Over the short term (e.g. the next several product features) it may in fact be cheaper for a team to focus on speed and not quality. The accumulated technical debt would only cause problems for future development, and that's why it's taken on. In most cases, I think everyone (including management) knows perfectly well that high quality software is cheaper in the long run, but they're willing to take on that debt in order to have some short term benefit.