
Faster, Better, Cheaper – The Art of Making Software - jrsinclair
http://jrsinclair.com/articles/2017/faster-better-cheaper-art-of-making-software/
======
mgrandau
Nice. Now read this (I think it says the same thing just shorter): We are
uncovering better ways of developing software by doing it and helping others
do it. Through this work we have come to value:

Individuals and interactions over processes and tools Working software over
comprehensive documentation Customer collaboration over contract negotiation
Responding to change over following a plan

That is, while there is value in the items on the right, we value the items on
the left more.

~~~
ChristianGeek
That sounds vaguely familiar. ;)

~~~
mgrandau
just a shorter version of everything he said in the blog post.

------
the6threplicant
There will always be a war between developers and sales. Sales always needs a
foot in the door - and incomplete software can get them there. The customer
(and sales team) might even expect faulty software, but just as long as you
can demonstrate some features can be delivered that might be enough to get the
sales through (and pay for the better quality).

It's great that we want great software and even make the customer be part of
some feedback cycle but sometimes you need to play "dirty" to make your
company survive, and making your sales department happy is one of them. A good
sales department knows the business and requirements better than any developer
and sometimes you need to listen to them and not "agile your way around it".

Too many drinks with the VP Sales guy yesterday. :/

~~~
hvidgaard
The point of being agile and have continues feedback is exactly pleasing the
sales department. Focus on the features they need to close a sale, then
everything else.

~~~
AstralStorm
That is not enough. Typical agile process is also supposed to keep software
easy to change, but instead what you get is pushing a prototype into
production even before it is finished in the limited feature set.

~~~
hvidgaard
Then don't create a prototype to begin with. I have had zero issues when
clearly communicating these things. If you want me to prototype things, then
fine, but I'm not signing it off to production. If they overrule me anyway
without a really good reason, I'll find somewhere else to apply my skillset.

------
tempodox
> The issue is that estimation and predictability are impossible problems to
> solve.

Not the first time I read something like that, but it still soothes my nerves
every time. I keep feeling like an idiot when I can't answer those inevitable
questions from people wearing managerial hats.

~~~
pdimitar
Never forget you're not alone in this. This is one of the things many people
want to suppress in the experts because there's a big economical interest in
those people keeping quiet about these things because that means you can
pressure the experts by guilt-tripping them.

Never works on me for years now.

Keep fighting the good fight. I do as well.

------
pdimitar
99% of the time the problems I've had with business people stemmed from this
simple lie:

"I understand you need to make it better and I understand we need to invest
now in order to save expenses later. Fine! But let's make it quickly and ugly
right now because we need to get to market."

You can predict what I'll say. "Later" never comes. They lie. They are
businessmen and they know how to make you feel good about yourself so you can
get to work on their interests.

"Why do you need to rework? The thing is working!"

...Of course.

Too cynical, I know -- just venting and that attitude I'm showing here is not
representative of how I communicate. I manage to find a common language with
most of them but I'd prefer never to have to deal with them in the first
place.

That costs me a lot of income lately but I still don't budge.

------
Animats
Faster, Better, Cheaper - pick two.

~~~
amelius
That's easy. Better and cheaper please.

~~~
GuB-42
Slow is only applicable in a few cases.

When you identify the needs and start developing, you must make sure the needs
are still there when you finish.

The more time you take, the more likely a competitor can steal your market.

You need serious backing, because you won't make any profit during the initial
phase.

Sometimes, being fast is a customer requirement, otherwise, you won't get the
job.

Companies like Blizzard Entertainment can get away with "when it is done" but
they are the exception rather than the rule.

~~~
AstralStorm
Almost never the first incumbent takes over a market a in the end. It is a lie
propagated in the same way as all the get rich quick schemes.

Blizzard did not invent the RTS. Nor the hack and slash roguelike. What they
did is produce polished experiences from the outset. Heck, compare even the
silly Overwatch. It is not even close to the first team shooter.

~~~
Animats
General Electric.

Kodak.

IBM.

Xerox.

All were the first incumbent in their area and were dominant for many decades.

Craiglist even qualifies.

~~~
pdimitar
Pretty huge corporations and I'm willing to bet an organ they used very shady
techniques to keep themselves on the top. So not really a good comparison.

Apple was small and on the brink of going out of business. There were
smartphone-like devices on the market already. They improved on them. I belive
that's what your parent commenter is saying.

