
Speed as a Habit - prostoalex
http://firstround.com/review/speed-as-a-habit/?_hsenc=p2ANqtz-9ggNVk_nnVj0i8FtJeM94p3IGWuqjR592d48TjFn1qzNp0b8gR_5_UxJThW5vvsBZua549t83OMHR3SKg8IMpuHco5yg&_hsmi=20749075
======
fankt
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9923239](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9923239)

------
hugofirth
This guy doesn't really understand what "All else being equal" implies.

The phrase has a very specific meaning in statistics. Any one of us can think
of counter-examples where a company which was late to a market ended up
dominating it. This article's opening statement allows the author to deflect
these repostes, saying "Ah but in that case, company x's execution was much
better" or "Company b's marketing push came at a really bad time"; i.e. All
else _wasn 't_ equal and so your counter-example doesn't detract from the
author's point.

This reasoning is problematic. Imagine the equivalent phrase: "If you have two
Ferraris, identical in _every single way_ except that one has a higher rate of
acceleration than the other, then the faster Ferrari is better". In a vacuum,
this statement is so obviously true that it doesn't need to be said.

So the author starts with this statement. As every reader will intuitively
agree with it, the author gets them "on side". They then go on to make
unsupported claims, which the reader is now happilly innoculated to.

The article's opening is misleading because, effort being a finite resource,
all else _cannot_ be equal when it comes to human endeavour. By focusing on
speed you inevitably sacrifice time spent on something else such as the
rollcage, the breaks, or the looks.

The prediliction for speed and fast execution is systemic in the startup scene
right now and it can be very damaging. Don't ignore that risk when pushing to
deliver.

We didn't put men on the moon quickly, we did it as safely as we could. Google
didn't become the pre-eminent search engine because it was first (it wasn't),
but rather because it was the best.

EDIT: It has been pointed out to me that misuse of "All else being equal" in
this manner is fairly common. That being the case, it is unlikely that the
author was purposefully attempting to support an argument they knew to be weak
(why would they do so, afterall). Apologies if the tone of the original
comment was taken as aggressive :)

------
calinet6
I'll just re-post the same comment I posted on the original posting of this...

I take offense to idea of speed as a priority, though not necessarily to the
whole article.

> All else being equal, the fastest company in any market will win.

All else is never equal when speed is the driving factor. I have never seen a
company execute well while pressuring for speed.

It's significantly more important to think about systems. What is the
cooperative source of your speed? What are the barriers to making good product
quickly? What allows us to make faster decisions?

Invariably, without fail, unequivocally, the answers to these questions—which
are sources of speed, quality, and market fit—lie in the systems that compose
a company. Not systems as in slow methodical heavy processes, but systems as
in a clear understanding of how things are connected and how to continually
improve how they work.

Start with systems, then you can go fast. It's ludicrously dangerous to put
the cart before the horse. Granted, much of this article dives into detail on
how to make things run smoother in order to go fast—that's great, but if you
focus primarily on the systemic source, imagine how fast you could go.

Speed... a noble goal, but as W. Edwards Deming said, "By what method?"

------
maest
> I’ve long believed that speed is the ultimate weapon in business. All else
> being equal, the fastest company in any market will win.

That doesn't follow. "All else being equal, best execution in any market will
win". Does that mean, that good execution is the ultimate weapon in business?

Off topic: based on the title, I was expecting some drug addict stories.

~~~
pennaMan
I too thought it would be about the drug. But reading it, it's not even that
far off, sounds a lot like an addict story. (Not the regret-filled, heroin or
meth drug stories. The happy recreational use ones). This guy makes me
seriously start questioning my career path in the industry.

~~~
thecupisblue
I was expecting about how the CEO does speed and how it impacted his work
life. Too bad.

------
tonyedgecombe
I've worked for people like this, it isn't much fun.

~~~
bonobo3000
I haven't, but I can imagine "why can't this be done faster?" becoming a
tactic to intimidate people into working long hours to meet unrealistic
deadlines that keep shrinking. Hopefully thats not the case at Upstart.

~~~
calinet6
It's the right question, but the answer is more complex than the asker usually
wants to recognize. Too often it's used as a short-term stick rather than as a
means to improve.

For that reason alone, it's best to ignore the speed motivator and focus on
what can actually improve to get you to be faster as a team.

------
pweissbrod
I was honestly expecting an article coaching how to break unhealthy habits of
hasty working/thinking.

In my experience too much speed poses a much greater risk than too little.

I dont agree with the general point of this article

------
ben_bai
I like this way better:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9952875](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9952875)

"Why slow thinking wins"

~~~
dbg31415
Thank you. This was spot on.

------
thesz
Quote: "A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan next
week.

General George Patton said that, and I definitely subscribe to it. Do you
remember the last time you were in a meeting and someone said, “We’re going to
make this decision before we leave the room”? How great did that feel? Didn’t
you just want to hug that person?"

I, actually, wanted to severely beat that person for depriving me precious
silent time alone to think about the decision.

~~~
adamtj
If you are unprepared for a meeting, who's fault is that?

There are different kinds of meetings. You need know what kind one is before
you agree to attend. If it's a decision meeting, then you need to do your
silent reflection before it begins.

------
mannimow
With ever-increasing exposure to opinions and personal anecdotes / experiences
on the internet these days , it's more important than ever to make your own
judgements.
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9952875](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9952875)
This was posted today and encourages to take it slow and rationally.

Even thought both articles imply different contexts of 'fast' and 'slow',
being caught in the impulsive decision making cycle is very easy, because, as
the referenced book "Thinking Fast, Slow" states this is the natural, energy-
efficient mode.

A friend of mine went to visit some of the biggest startups in SF (we are from
Netherlands) and was shocked with the working culture. Things are going at
insanely fast rates, people are irritated and the environment is extremely
charged. Comparing to Europe, the work culture is more relaxed, a lot of
people work part hours. I wonder what effect it has on productivity,
accomplishments and satisfaction with life?

------
Practicality
Oh, The messes this sort of thinking has caused for me! In my past experience,
"Just get it done today" leads to all kinds of complicated problems in the
future.

Yes, you can get it done today, but you will have a mess tomorrow. And you
might just burn-out all the employees that can fix it.

~~~
mironathetin
Couldn't agree more. In my last team, the 'frontman' was a cowboy coder, who
solved management requests immediately. The amount of chaos he produced
downstream was unbelievable. Back then I started to understand companies,
which get rid of middle management.

This article is a perfect example of a hero manager who doesn't get it, imho.
If you are too dumb to think, what can you do except make it a strategy not
to.

------
thecupisblue
" Google is fast. General Motors is slow. Startups are fast. Big companies are
slow."

Google is a startup, not a big company? And this dude leads a business?

~~~
tonyjstark
Only one out of 10 startups does not die in the first 5 years. So they are
fast but they also die fast. So much about making fast decisions. Also:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9952875](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9952875)

------
francisb07
This was already posted a few days ago. It's all a matter of perspective
though. People see the JFDI speed as piling on technical debt. Others see it
as agile or lean.

Personally, speed is a matter of motivation and dedication on how much you
want done per unit of time.

~~~
collyw
Everything is almost always a trade off.

~~~
calinet6
Speed, quality, and market fit have the same parent: systems thinking.

If you get your systems right, all three go up at once. The tradeoff is a
false dichotomy.

And logically, this makes sense. If you've doubled your workforce, what the
hell is preventing them from going quickly and executing well at the same
time? Shouldn't you expect a decent bump in efficiency, if not double then at
least a moderate increase? What leads to diminishing returns when you grow?

Systems, that's what. The connections between people, between processes, and
the methods of management that generate those connections.

Read up on Deming, still the best source of wisdom on the topic.

~~~
marcosdumay
Yes, but of course, for every system there exist optimums, where any change
will either just trade one quality for another, or worsen them all on average.

The best posture for a specific system depends on how far you are from an
optimum, and not by mindlessly claiming that "there's not free lunch" or "we
can always improve".

~~~
calinet6
> where any change will either just trade one quality for another, or worsen
> them all on average.

Doesn't the fact that a change can worsen all three qualities imply that there
must be a change that can also improve all three qualities?

These things are not always mutually exclusive. That's the fallacy.

~~~
marcosdumay
No, why would you ask that?

Read the full phrase, not just half. I didn't say those are mutually exclusive
anyway.

~~~
calinet6
Gotcha, yes -- it comes from understanding the system and its optimum.
Certainly not from mindlessly advocating for either extreme.

~~~
marcosdumay
I guess everybody gets to put stuff on the Internet before taking a morning
cup of coffee, or in a rush. I'm certainly guilty of both.

------
DennisP
A great book along these lines is _Certain to Win: The Strategy of John Boyd,
Applied to Business_ by Chet Richards.

Boyd was a fighter pilot who invented the concept of the "OODA Loop." Observe,
Orient, Decide, Act. The competitor who can do this faster generally
wins...not just by moving faster, but by disorienting opponents, and thus
disrupting their OODA loops.

There's more to it than just pushing for speed. If you're doing a poor job of
understanding the situation, for example, pushing ahead with fast decisions
won't help you.

A lot of what Richards writes about is building a business capable of fast,
effective OODA loops.

------
onion2k
I half agree with the article. Speed is definitely a good thing when you're
behind. If you launch later than competitors and you go faster than them you
can catch up. If someone else launches a feature that's popular you can copy
it quickly. But if you're already ahead then speed only has one practical
advantage - being in a leading position means you'll be the company taking on
the cost and risk of testing new features, so being fast means you can correct
quickly if they prove not to work. Depending on the market you're in it's
often better to go slower and test things in smaller, less costly ways
instead.

