I think the quoted toot is funny coz I’ve shared https://web.archive.org/web/20220601143735/https://www.fastcompany.com/28121/they-write-right-stuff (from 1996) w/a lot with PMs. It’s very much worth a read
-
I think the quoted toot is funny coz I’ve shared https://web.archive.org/web/20220601143735/https://www.fastcompany.com/28121/they-write-right-stuff (from 1996) w/a lot with PMs. It’s very much worth a read
Here’s the thing about this style of waterfall though: That kind of engineering deals with knowable, objective things. They have planning & budget timescales which span years & decades. Their cost of failure is measured in reputation & lives. https://toot.cat/@devopscats/112679956940107736
-
I’ve never heard of such things existing in “soft” tech. Most things we do aren’t knowable or objective; often times we’re testing theories about what the right answer even *is*. I’ve never seen a realistic planning timescale beyond this quarter, or a budget that isn’t tied to shareholder value.
-
@mattly Notably, we have also not landed on Mars.
-
-
-
@kneath @mattly I think it's also not necessarily about dealing with knowable, objective things (there's a lot we don't know about the places we send our spacecraft).
The whole delineation between project structure and management approach is rooted in something that, generally, non-aerospace tech people probably talk way too little about: risk tolerance. An honest, forthright discussion of the failure modes of each approach often doesn't happen enough because people get dogmatic.
-
-