[marcus_holmes]

Ok, but some tasks are less valuable and take more time to do, but are completely necessary. How do you value something like that? What if the "value" is actually less than the cost of the task (but it's still absolutely necessary)?

And if a task has an internal price on it, but the development time slips, to the point it exceeds the price, do you stop development?

I think this method is interesting, but I have a feeling that all you're doing is shifting the complexity around. The underlying complexity is still there (it's impossible to accurately estimate a development task and impossible to measure developer productivity). I guess that's a good thing, though - now the whole company has to deal with the complexity rather than just the dev team ;)

[andrey_utkin]

> What if the "value" is actually less than the cost of the task (but it's still absolutely necessary)?

This is a false premise. But it's surprising how many people seem to hold it, to their peril.

> I have a feeling that all you're doing is shifting the complexity around. The underlying complexity is still there

That's right, but do you agree this approach moves it to a place where it makes more sense, where it informs good decisions and is manageable?

> it's impossible to accurately estimate a development task and impossible to measure developer productivity

It's not impossible, but it's not something we as a society or an industry have a common fine grasp on. On this topic, I like best the books by Doug Hubbard: "How to measure anything" and "The failure of risk management: what is it and how to fix it".

It just requires yet another unusual mindset: probabilistic thinking, in addition to the above-established value-based thinking. You have to use a technique called calibrated probability assessment. We started practicing this at my workplace, and it seems to be working as intended, but we're not well calibrated yet.

[marcus_holmes]

> That's right, but do you agree this approach moves it to a place where it makes more sense, where it informs good decisions and is manageable?

I have no idea. I don't know enough about the approach to assess it. I like the idea of it, but I'd be concerned about the method of valuation. There's a lot of hand-waving in corporate accounting and the value of anything in a company is mostly a made-up number (enforced occasionally by accounting standards). I'd be concerned that all it does is externalise (and therefore politicise) the kind of decisions that a good CTO normally makes internally.

> It's not impossible

I should have refined my statement. It's impossible to give a definitive estimate for software development. You can definitely give a probablistic one (which I think is what you're talking about), but that's usually unacceptable to the rest of the executive team. Educating the rest of the executive team to think in probabilities sounds harder than just telling them "no you can't have a definitive deadline" ;)