2 ms·

> while the other is less likely to take a bad decision That's not necessarily the case, actually. You will be slow so you may make outdated decisions and you

> while the other is less likely to take a bad decision That's not necessarily the case, actually. You will be slow so you may make outdated decisions and you will try to "cover everything" in advance, which means you may well cover the wrong things. "No plan survives contact with the enemy". A business case-in-point is Nokia vs Apple. Nokia was caught completely off-guard by the iPhone and they then spent years planning their response (down to the usual comprehensive technical design specs covering every details) while Apple was churning one new version of the iPhone almost every year. Perhaps a similar scenario is playing out with SpaceX vs Arianespace (Ariane 6 design started in ~2012 with first flight in 2024, "only" 12 years later).

TeMPOraL 2y ago
Right. The counterpoint would be, "moving fast and breaking things" can sometimes break the important things, destroying far more value than it can ever hope to deliver. A related observation is, you might be moving fast, but you're breaking other people's things. The slow approach might look like it's trying to "cover everything", but sometimes it's just trying to account for the things that could break, so that 1) they don't end up dumped on other people's heads as externalities, and 2) the total ROI is actually positive. Which model is more appropriate and to what degree, really depends on the context. Technology is often a good case for the "fast" model, but since this subthread is making this an US vs. Europe thing, it's only fair to point out that the "slow" model works better when the general public is on the receiving end of the business or political activities.
- mytailorisrich 2y ago
  Of course the right balance must be struck. The situation is Europe is not really demonstrating that the "European/slow model" works "better"... At the moment what we're seeing is legacy systems and companies slowly falling behind and decaying everywhere with a glacial pace of change.

TeMPOraL 2y ago

Right. The counterpoint would be, "moving fast and breaking things" can sometimes break the important things, destroying far more value than it can ever hope to deliver. A related observation is, you might be moving fast, but you're breaking other people's things. The slow approach might look like it's trying to "cover everything", but sometimes it's just trying to account for the things that could break, so that 1) they don't end up dumped on other people's heads as externalities, and 2) the total ROI is actually positive. Which model is more appropriate and to what degree, really depends on the context. Technology is often a good case for the "fast" model, but since this subthread is making this an US vs. Europe thing, it's only fair to point out that the "slow" model works better when the general public is on the receiving end of the business or political activities.

mytailorisrich 2y ago
Of course the right balance must be struck. The situation is Europe is not really demonstrating that the "European/slow model" works "better"... At the moment what we're seeing is legacy systems and companies slowly falling behind and decaying everywhere with a glacial pace of change.