|
I understand the issues at hand, and it seems to me that they should be divided into two categories: technical problems on one hand and product-related issues on the other, as defined by Eric Ries in "Lean Startup." In the first scenario, it is clear that for someone with a technical background, communicating the importance of quality is challenging. However, the concept of technical debt facilitates this communication. The notion of debt, with its inherent borrowing mechanism that incurs repayment over time, is something everyone can grasp. In practice, neglecting technical issues increases the cost of changes in the system. Asserting that a feature that takes 15 days to develop could have been done in significantly less time and at a fraction of the cost if the technical debt had been addressed is an argument that resonates with everyone, including those at the highest levels of the hierarchy. In the second scenario, the concept of product debt is not widely discussed. At best, discussions around Return on Investment (ROI) occur at the inception of product development, focusing on creating a Minimum Viable Product (MVP). Should we then treat a product as an asset, considering its cost, profitability, and how changes (such as new features) affect these aspects? Is there literature on this topic? From my experience, companies have difficulty grasping the product role (the role of Product Owner often obscures the issue). Just this week, I was explaining to my client that the product should not be defined by the sales team and that the individual in the product role must have direct conversations with customers. |