Comment by onion2k

10 years ago

Yes and no.

Do things fast when the cost of doing them wrong is low. If you're learning something, or doing something with low risk, then doing it as fast as possible is a really good idea (for all the reasons set out in the article).

But...

Do things slowly if the cost of getting it wrong is so high that you'll have no opportunity to try again. For example, don't pack a parachute quickly.

The key is recognising that there's more than one way to approach soemthing; selecting the right method for the problem at hand is the winning strategy.

15 comments

onion2k

Reply
hinkley  10 years ago

I think the concept you're trying to described is Reversible Decisions (unfortunately I can't recall who coined that phrase).

The idea is that any decision that is straightforward or easy to change should not be sweated over for any appreciable amount of time, and in fact can be deferred indefinitely (deciding not to decide).

Meanwhile, any decision or indecision that will have long term repercussions should be considered at length and with all due haste.

I mention indecision here deliberately, because things like deciding not to put authentication into your application in version 1 counts as a decision, one with far reaching and usually fairly aggravating (IME at least) long term effects on the project. Others would include thread safety, the ability to cluster or shard your design, multilingual support, audit trails, etc. If you are the only solution in the space then you often have time to correct these mistakes. But if one of your competitors figures these things out before you, you can find yourself in real trouble (one of the aspects of the Innovators Dilemma).

kev6168  10 years ago

The parachute analogy is worth exploring.

Let's say in a life time, the accident rates due to packing a parachute quickly is 1/10000, and the fatal rate of the slow packing group is 1/1000000. Even though the fast group faces bigger danger than the people in the slow group (or people sitting at home), but other than the few who have the bad luck, the rest of them will practice way more than the other group, jump more times, go to more places, have bigger opportunities to become a world champion of parachute packing or whatever parachuting sports.

Sure, a few will be forgotten by the world.

The victors we see in the world are probably the people who are still alive in the fast group, and have produced lots of results because of their speed and being still alive. Someone in that group will pay a huge price, but it's not necessary you or any particular one.

  • bunderbunder  10 years ago

    You're attacking this analogy with made-up numbers and wild logical leaps. What is the real risk increment to packing a chute hastily, and does the real number help or hurt your position? Now make the stakes really high. Also consider the possibility that your choices have externalities, and others around you may not want to share their jumps with someone they perceive to be that reckless idiot who's going to get himself killed.

    You didn't give specific numbers on how often someone can jump, but consider the realistic bounds on how much more often a person who packs hastily can skydive. How often is this person jumping? Are we in a scenario where the amount of time it takes to pack a parachute is really the limiting factor, to the point where the hasty packers can jump "way more?" Seems like what that would mean in concrete terms is that as soon as you hit the ground you're going to hit the john, re-pack your chute, and immediately be back in the plane. Is that a realistic scenario?

  • onion2k  10 years ago

    To be honest, if packing a parachute takes an hour longer and increases the chance of living by 100* I'd say that's worthwhile. But then, I also wouldn't call 1/10000 an especially high risk. We face those sorts of odds just driving a car and they don't put many of us off[1].

    If the probability of death from packing a parachute quickly were 1/100 then I think your argument would break down somewhat. Like I said, you should spend the appropriate time on something depending on the costs and risks associated with it. "Do everything fast" is wrong, but so is "Do everything slow".

    [1] In 2003 the annual risk of being killed as a car user were 1/15261. http://www.medicine.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/booth/Risk/trasnsport...