Comment by grvdrm

> The hardest part is giving yourself permission to ship something you know is flawed. But the feedback loop from real usage is worth more than weeks of hypothetical architecture debates.

Nice statement.

I think there is another equally pervasive problem: balancing between shipping something and strategizing a complete "operating system" but in the eyes of OTHER stakeholders.

I'm in this muck now. Working with an insurance co that's building internal tools. On one had we have a COO that wants an operating model for everything and what feels like strategy/process diagrams as proof of work.

Meanwhile I am encouraging not overplanning and instead building stuff, shipping, seeing what works, iterating, etc.

But that latter version causes anxiety as people "don't know what you're doing" when, in fact, you're doing plenty but it's just not the slide-deck-material things and instead the tangible work.

There is a communication component too, of course. Almost an entirely separate discipline.

I've never arrived at acceptable comfort on either side of this debate but lean towards "perfect is the enemy of good enough"