Habitat for Humanity was never just "doing stuff yourself". It is an organized effort with decades of history. They also take donations and hire enough experien

Habitat for Humanity was never just "doing stuff yourself". It is an organized effort with decades of history. They also take donations and hire enough experienced contractors who ensure the work is done to code (I've volunteered before). The volunteer aspect is there so that people who don't have money but have time can give something. More fundamentally, there's a religious element to the "service" (that's why I put it in quotes). In Christianity, being near the poor and literally serving the poor is very much a spiritual act which is done not ONLY for the benefit of the poor but for the benefit of those who are serving them. This is decidedly NOT morally incompetent. I admit this isn't an ROI which would be seen as valid in the project management book of knowledge, but it's real for the people who believe it. The OP essay was just a sloppy way for a founder to justify his pivot-- which never actually needed justification. The actual justification for the pivot was simply the original idea, "Quirk", wasn't ever going to get vc funding and make a 100x - 1000x return. I think it's disingenuous to invoke the concept moral competence for what is ultimately a materialistic decision.