4 ms·

While I agree with you on time vs. shortcuts, I do think it's a question of valuing explicit time vs. opportunity cost that's a depper issue here. My opinion i

by HCDevid 11y ago

While I agree with you on time vs. shortcuts, I do think it's a question of valuing explicit time vs. opportunity cost that's a depper issue here. My opinion is that whether it's programming or general white-collar work, most cases of doing it "the right way" vs. "the dirty way" tend to be about investing the "certainty" of lost time immediately for the "promise" of savings. For some things, the tradeoff is pretty decent (taking time to improve core knowledge or relevant skills that are related to goals). But for a quickly growing company, how many situations are there where a "hack it out" fix that costs time in the long run is a net win in opportunity cost and hence long-term value? If a shortcut that will cause you headaches in 9-18 months also allows you to add critical features at an accelerated pace for the next 6 months, is it: (1) inefficient because you net lose man-hours or (2) efficient (a) maximizes your near-term growth trajectory, (b) thereby increasing potential access to resources and hence long-term growth To be clear, I do agree with your statements about shortcuts usually not saving time especially when you deal with teams/setting standards. My point is more that while time saved/lost is easier to mentally calculate, it alone is not really what's driving value in many situations. There's also the inherent problem of using qualitative terms that mean different things to different people. But hey, that's part of the fun on the internet.

imh 11y ago
That's a dangerous attitude that makes sense for some startups, especially those with high burn rates. "If we don't get traction/product out the door now, we won't be able to raise our next round, so we have to get this product out the door yesterday to de-risk the whole company falling apart when we run out of money in a few months." Then later you raise your round and do the same thing for the next round. Eventually, of course, it will catch up with you and slow key progress. If you're unlucky that leads to a down round and you're all screwed. I see that as being a larger risk than competitors moving faster in the sort term (them moving faster short term may mean you move faster long term). Higher burn rates mean you have a clearer deadline for fundraising, means you're racing the clock, means you're incentivized to take on technical debt. I'd love to have a look at what really tends to kill companies more often, but it's just anecdotes and speculation from me today.
- HCDevid 11y ago
  It's definitely a dangerous attitude, this is also the problem with anecdotes, we all start postulating strawmans. I would point out though that in the financing-focused case you gave, although you have a definitive slow down from technical debt, it's still an open question whether or not it's actually a net slowdown vs the "status quo" scenario. In practice of course, every individual company, with different teams and different contexts, has to find the right "cognitive bias" for themselves.

by HCDevid 11y ago

imh 11y ago

That's a dangerous attitude that makes sense for some startups, especially those with high burn rates. "If we don't get traction/product out the door now, we won't be able to raise our next round, so we have to get this product out the door yesterday to de-risk the whole company falling apart when we run out of money in a few months." Then later you raise your round and do the same thing for the next round. Eventually, of course, it will catch up with you and slow key progress. If you're unlucky that leads to a down round and you're all screwed. I see that as being a larger risk than competitors moving faster in the sort term (them moving faster short term may mean you move faster long term). Higher burn rates mean you have a clearer deadline for fundraising, means you're racing the clock, means you're incentivized to take on technical debt. I'd love to have a look at what really tends to kill companies more often, but it's just anecdotes and speculation from me today.

HCDevid 11y ago
It's definitely a dangerous attitude, this is also the problem with anecdotes, we all start postulating strawmans. I would point out though that in the financing-focused case you gave, although you have a definitive slow down from technical debt, it's still an open question whether or not it's actually a net slowdown vs the "status quo" scenario. In practice of course, every individual company, with different teams and different contexts, has to find the right "cognitive bias" for themselves.