> They start super scrappy, quick to iterate, build and throwaway hardware quickly. But then are experts of transitioning into a sustainable late stage developm

> They start super scrappy, quick to iterate, build and throwaway hardware quickly. But then are experts of transitioning into a sustainable late stage development within the regulatory bounds of a highly controlled industry. I wish something like this could happen in software, too. I have worked in a a couple regulated industries, and in all cases the firm's decision to impose the same level of governance at all levels of the software value chain was a horrible impediment to innovation. After a certain number of iterations of having to do governance reviews of spikes and PoCs that were going to be thrown away regardless of whether the idea worked, any developer who values their own time will eventually settle into avoiding true prototype and PoC work and instead dive straight into writing production-bound code from the beginning. I've wondered if we could get more innovation and more quality by allowing rapid iteration (without all the paperwork) during early development and prototyping of an idea, followed by a complete and in-depth review, documentation and certification of the final design and implementation as part of preparing it to ship to production.