[francisb07]

This was already posted a few days ago. It's all a matter of perspective though. People see the JFDI speed as piling on technical debt. Others see it as agile or lean.

Personally, speed is a matter of motivation and dedication on how much you want done per unit of time.

[collyw]

Everything is almost always a trade off.

[calinet6]

Speed, quality, and market fit have the same parent: systems thinking.

If you get your systems right, all three go up at once. The tradeoff is a false dichotomy.

And logically, this makes sense. If you've doubled your workforce, what the hell is preventing them from going quickly and executing well at the same time? Shouldn't you expect a decent bump in efficiency, if not double then at least a moderate increase? What leads to diminishing returns when you grow?

Systems, that's what. The connections between people, between processes, and the methods of management that generate those connections.

Read up on Deming, still the best source of wisdom on the topic.

[francisb07]

I agree with the speed, quality, and market fit issue all driven by systems thinking. Diminishing happens when you don't hire well (this is from a startup's perspective). Having 100 10x-ers will obviously perform better than 500 5x-ers.

I think it all comes back down to motivation. Systems and design-level thinking is core, but there should be proper motivation.

[marcosdumay]

Yes, but of course, for every system there exist optimums, where any change will either just trade one quality for another, or worsen them all on average.

The best posture for a specific system depends on how far you are from an optimum, and not by mindlessly claiming that "there's not free lunch" or "we can always improve".

[calinet6]

> where any change will either just trade one quality for another, or worsen them all on average.

Doesn't the fact that a change can worsen all three qualities imply that there must be a change that can also improve all three qualities?

These things are not always mutually exclusive. That's the fallacy.

[marcosdumay]

No, why would you ask that?

Read the full phrase, not just half. I didn't say those are mutually exclusive anyway.

[calinet6]

Gotcha, yes -- it comes from understanding the system and its optimum. Certainly not from mindlessly advocating for either extreme.

[arithma]

Yes! Everything else that goes into a product is usually a clear decision, so "everything" that could ever be studied and discussed has a lot of facets into it. When one of those debatable issues undergoes a breakthrough in research/product/tooling, it becomes part of the background known, and again "everything" is still a trade off. It would be interesting to focus on the inherently irreducible tradeoffs that we must undertake, stuff that are ordained by laws of nature (and math?)