4 ms·
Yes, the thing is that the concepts of polish and requirements are not stable across different perspectives. What I am calling requirements were viewed as unnec
by gchamonlive 4y ago
Yes, the thing is that the concepts of polish and requirements are not stable across different perspectives. What I am calling requirements were viewed as unnecessary flourishes by someone else. The comment is actually motivated from experiences in my work. There was always this constant resistance from a colleague to do what I thought was a basic requirement, where he thought was unnecessary.
So it is much more a matter of culture, the constructed meaning of those concepts and how they translate in practice that shape the discussion. It is a matter of quality and how different people have different perspectives on the matter, none of them being objectively wrong, because how on earth can you even be objective about it? There is nothing in essence that says that a project with well documented design principles is better than another, otherwise you would just say "it is better because it is", when in reality "it's better just because I say so and the team agrees".
- brudgers 4y agoTo the degree they are requirements, the work can be reassigned within the team and it will make no difference. Not fulfilling requirements is a straight up HR performance matter. An unwillingness to execute in conformance with culture is also an HR matter for cultural fit. In both cases it is not a matter of good-enough. It is a matter of not-good-enough. Situations where it is not these are what the article covers, e.g. when the important thing is someone performing as requested not as expertise indicates or when there are non-trivial opportunity costs to fulfilling the request.