| I think problems tend to arise from the following... - The clamour over "HOW" something is built, will most certainly shape 'WHAT' is built - After "WHAT" is delivered, it's existence is then found to conflict with "WHY" in someway (missing features, design made to fit the tooling, people implementing ideas they feel is right for the user, etc) Two years later, you're re-writing vast portions of the originally defined "WHAT", based on a renewed declaration of "WHY". By this time, the engineering team will have new and innovative ideas related to "HOW", even though the "WHY" never changed... But the "WHY" has been forced to move on a great deal, because the "WHAT" made the original declaration of "WHY" look misguided. Although it wasn't. Tbh, the "HOW" is extremely hard, which is why this is such a common state of affairs... Not sure if that makes any sense, but that was fun to write! |