This is a great article, but the title is stupid as it gets.
“better” is better. If your definition of “better” doesn’t match reality, then you should correct your definition of “better” and “worse”. Instead of saying “everyone, except me, is wrong”
You kind have a point ... the original title is like making three lefts to make a right. :) My sense of the underlying insight is that if,
* the org's ability to get good customer requirements
* the org's ability to have good cross functional management between biz/eng
* poor domain expertise either in the domain or realm of software
* there's plenty of smart guys/gals but the domain of work is newish and complex (e.g. transition from app dev to distributed algos) so that scope is unclear and it's hard to know A much important B less so
then it really is better iterate early, often circling back to correct/improve any of the above when possible.
But worse (in one sense) is better (in another, related sense). The obvious contradiction is arresting and drives home this underlying point rhetorically. It is an excellent title. Literalism is for manuals and specifications.
“better” is better. If your definition of “better” doesn’t match reality, then you should correct your definition of “better” and “worse”. Instead of saying “everyone, except me, is wrong”