[TeMPOraL]

> If you ask an enterprise vendor if their software has feature X, the answer is always, "Yes!" You'll find their software is infinitely customizable with just a bit of configuration.

Or, like it happens in smaller B2B deals, they'll say "Yes!", and then after the meeting go to the dev team and say: "we just signed a contract in which we promised feature X; you need to implement it in two weeks".

[jjn2009]

>"we just signed a contract in which we promised feature X; you need to implement it in two weeks".

This hits wayyyy to close to home.

[dexterdog]

You also got two weeks? You guys are both lucky.

[arethuza]

I knew a CEO once who honestly believed that any feature he could conceive of could be implemented in two weeks.

He was quite successful....

Any before anyone asks what the logic was behind this - there wasn't any - he just chose to believe it and ignore any evidence to the contrary.

[shimon]

Optimism beyond the reasonable may be a critical trait for a successful CEO. Not necessarily what you want in your own manager, of course, but company leaders need to chase risk in order to do well and that's hard to do if you're ready to believe all the (reasonable) opposition that new ideas face.

[dsr_]

Add survivorship bias to unreasonable optimism, and you get a culture of celebrating CEOs who demanded the impossible and got it enough times that the companies made money.

Meanwhile, CEOs who demand the impossible and don't get lucky are not celebrated, but are also not widely publicized as failures, so people don't learn from those lessons.

[Bartweiss]

So there's the idea of 'depressive realism'. Basically, that depressed people may have more accurate judgements of the world than non-depressed people, since they're more willing to recognize the frequency of bad stuff.

I've always sort of wondered if there's a reverse effect - if the kind of person who can eagerly commit a big chunk of their life to a task with a 95%+ risk of failure is significantly less likely to be in touch with reality than others.

[_puk]

They wait for the signature?

I thought it was always "in the bag, last couple of redlines to get sorted, but that'll be sorted by the end of the week, no worries."

But yeah, 2 weeks to implement, then it sits there whilst they sort out some overlooked complication

[taneq]

Wait for the signature? Ha. Ahahaha. That's the best case. On some tasks, they wait until two weeks after the due date before telling the team about the feature.

(One contract job I did a while back, the first thing the client asked me for some was some documentation. The forwarded email trail explaining exactly what documentation also contained an email sent two weeks prior, apologising for the delay and saying 'their programmers' were working on it.)

[thehardsphere]

I had this happen also with a particular customer once. They were a large financial institution who bought our product to replace their previous software package that had been way past EOL.

Because they already had software to do this task, my boss assumed that determining the custom requirements for them would be very straightforward, and would only take a week or two. We ended up spending the next 3 months in very tedious conference calls preparing requirements documentation that their obnoxious internal processes required.

Just when we finished that, the customer came back and said, "That's great. Government-Alphabet-Agency gave us a hard deadline to switch to the new system in three weeks." By that point the scope of the project expanded to about 3 months of work.

We still managed to ship something for their deadline, somehow, and we're still providing maintainence for that, oddly enough.