[contrast]

Andrew Ng isn't proposing anything more than starting with a product idea rather than a market definition. "I've got an idea for a product so let's build a prototype to test it" isn't waterfall.

His argument is pointlessly contrarian, too. He says his proposal is counter to design thinking, but design thinking would encourage you to build the exact same prototype he is proposing. As his own piece acknowledges, if you're at an early stage where you don't have any specific product ideas, design thinking could be a good starting point.

In practice, this is all the same core idea. The end result is better if you investigate real ideas rather than rely on abstractions and assumptions. Test your ideas with prototypes. Be ready to discover your favourite idea doesn't work and change direction.

I wonder if he's really arguing against something that is independent of the method chosen: handing your money and control over to teams whose incentives are to spend as much time as possible on consultative exercises.

[dartos]

The comment I was replying to has this quote in it

> he went beyond just advocating for concrete specs and explicitly challenged the traditional design-thinking approach, arguing that teams should pick a fully formed idea and run with it rather than spending too long on broad problem exploration and multiple potential solutions