I'd say the OP is _ignoring_ scope altogether, making his point pretty much irrelevant. Mr. Beck does a good job here of pointing out that scope drives the whole thing and the other 3 are just along for the planning ride.
I think "good" needs unpacking. If it means quality, then it's not really a tradeoff. Like you said, cutting corners on quality tends to result in going slower and spending more.
Simplicity is a secret weapon here. Don't build more than you need now. If you build with quality, you'll go faster and spend less.
The idea that you can trade quality for speed and vice versa is bullshit, and harmful.
Patrick aimed at "Good, Fast, and Cheap" and hit the project management pyramid instead.
You nailed it: it's not the Slow who's adding scope that add little value, it's whoever is in charge of the requirements.
Wow this is an old idea worth keeping up front!
The original poster is thinking in three dimensions, you are thinking in four.
I'd say the OP is _ignoring_ scope altogether, making his point pretty much irrelevant. Mr. Beck does a good job here of pointing out that scope drives the whole thing and the other 3 are just along for the planning ride.
💯💯💯
The classic software project “iron triangle”:
Scope, schedule, budget.
Quality/safety should be nonnegotiable.
I think "good" needs unpacking. If it means quality, then it's not really a tradeoff. Like you said, cutting corners on quality tends to result in going slower and spending more.
Simplicity is a secret weapon here. Don't build more than you need now. If you build with quality, you'll go faster and spend less.
The idea that you can trade quality for speed and vice versa is bullshit, and harmful.
These aren’t independent variables: Quality drives speed ( at least over time). Or as my mother would say “less haste, more speed”