I think risk management [1] is the best way to approach these decisions. When evaluating a tool/technique you're whose tradeoffs you're not entirely familiar wi

I think risk management [1] is the best way to approach these decisions. When evaluating a tool/technique you're whose tradeoffs you're not entirely familiar with, simple rejectionism can kill you later with the poor maintainability and complexity of the toolset you just happened to currently be more familiar with. Sensible risk management means you have fallbacks when a particular risk doesn't work out, while reaping the benefits of your speculative investments. That said, while I don't like simple rejectionism (and probably would not tolerate such an environment for long), it's probably a lot better than teams which say Yes way too readily. (Also, I question the actual cleverness of so-called "clever" ideas. Clever as in the random pun that took a fraction of a sec to think up, or clever as in the good hack that cuts the gordian knot?) [1] http://howwework.thinkrelevance.com/stakeholder_narrative.html http://howwework.thinkrelevance.com/stakeholder_narrative.ht...