> I’m sure that’s what they were trying to do, but their argument only carries weight in the context of those hyperboles. I think this is a bit uncharitable.

> I’m sure that’s what they were trying to do, but their argument only carries weight in the context of those hyperboles. I think this is a bit uncharitable. Yes, nominally everyone is trying to do this, but in practice this comes down to a lot of tradeoffs in terms of timeframes, team sizes, and maintainability/scalability. Even if you have balanced perspectives, what usually ends up happening in larger corporations is some group has a louder voice and more power, and ends up influencing decisions in a way that is globally suboptimal because executives are too busy, and local managers are too focused on their own silos/perf evaluation. For example, complexity is often built into the product and systems according to the resourcing allocated to a particular problem at a certain point without a full understanding of the implications over time. However, when that complexity is found to have a poor ROI there is then a natural aversion to removing it because at that point it's hard to quantify how exactly the business depends on it. This creates a tax on the entire org, which many can observe, but structuring incentives to fix is fiendishly difficult, especially in comparison to new growth opportunities that get executives, board members and investors excited.