By this definition of "shallow drivel", any summary is useless. They are providing an introduction - which is easier to read than the article. I think that's va

By this definition of "shallow drivel", any summary is useless. They are providing an introduction - which is easier to read than the article. I think that's valuable. (BTW: I didn't realize you meant the online article - I thought you meant the actual research paper - my mistake). The title is potentially misleading when taken out of context - but the text of the article doesn't distort the original article. It fact, it quotes heavily from it. So, possibly the title is disingenuous - but to say the entire article that 37Signals wrote is completely disingenuous is not accurate. At any rate, their title is substring of the linked article's title. Judging an article by its headline and final line is similar to judging a book by its cover. It's possible to interpret the last line as you have - but only by ignoring the rest of the text. The line is a play on words "plan on improving" as an expression usually means just to decide to improve; but in the context of the article, it also means to have some strategy for improving. It's true that 37Signals advocates just moving in a direction; whereas the linked to article talks about written plans for gathering information. So I can sympathize with your point of view. There is still a lot of common ground between them, and both parties acknowledge the same reality, and the same kind of approach to a solution - but the details of the solutions differ. For reference, here's the 37Signal article: http://www.37signals.com/svn/posts/1707-the-only-plan-is-to-learn-as-you-go http://www.37signals.com/svn/posts/1707-the-only-plan-is-to-... EDIT reading the linked to article (I was relying on their academic paper before), I see what you mean in that they gloss over the details, which I'd summarise with this quote: I document all the assumptions that I'm making. And then I test these assumptions. I plan to test these assumptions at checkpoints. 37Signals is ignoring the details, but keeping the philosophy, which is If I'm likely to be wrong, then how do I plan in such a way that the cost of being wrong is as low as possible? Being extremely agile is a way to do that. 37Signals is not so much distorting the article, as summarizing its basic idea. The full article is linked to for further reading (as you have done). BTW: I actually disagree with MacMillan's reverse income statement, for startups. Although it's sensible, it would have prevented Xerox from starting (IBM's consultants measured the price and potential market share, and concluded - accurately - that it wasn't worth pursuing given reality as it existed at that time). Of course, IBM was huge corporation even then, and had a different attitude to risk than startups do - and should have. Anyway, thanks for explaining your point of view, it makes it possible to have an interesting discussion, especially with someone who disagrees with you - often the most fruitful kind.