[dkarl]

Metaphors get abused in this article in a confusing way, and I don't think it explains why the quality curve goes downward at first -- the initial drop in quality is compared to an initial capital investment? what? -- but I agree with the truth of it.

I think the article could be a lot shorter and easier to understand if it simply said that the current design is in a local maximum, and you have to work your way incrementally out of the local maximum to reach a different local maximum. I think programmers would get that metaphor a lot more easily than the "buying widgets for a new factory" metaphor.

I do like how the article puts the spotlight on designing the process of change: picking the route, picking the size of the steps, and picking the right spot to announce as the goal. That gives me a lot of food for thought about the changes my team is contemplating right now.

[hu3]

Wonderful summary.

Perhaps to rephrase it even simpler:

To reach higher mountains we need to climb down our current peak, walk through valleys, until we find higher mountains to climb.

[lpcrealmadrid]

What a wonderfully constructive comment. This is a great model for me to remember when I encounter things I like the substance of but dislike some of the specifics. Thank you!

[Chrisoaks]

Appealing to a local maximum more or less repeats the claim.

Why would the current design be at a local maximum in the first place?

[immibis]

because otherwise you'd improve it incrementally?

[sdwr]

Yeah, it has a good point to make (change means abandoning local maxima), but overplays its hand.

The curve picture feels like a false idol, as soon as he starts doing TA on it, the carriage is well in front of the horse