It's interesting how our conceptions of iteration/incrementation (example below) lack any recognition of *getting it wrong.*
The value of iteration is not "we made a sketch" but "we made a dozen sketches and learned what *not* to draw."
The value of iteration is not "we made a sketch" but "we made a dozen sketches and learned what *not* to draw."
The lack of recognition that we might be wrong propagates through every product decision, and so we get linear roadmaps and "validation" exercises framed to prove that we were right (because the roadmap has no time for fixing anything if we weren't).
A true iterative process needs to acknowledge how long it will take to:
- create an artifact
- learn from it
- make new decisions based on that learning
- update the artifact based on those decisions
But "velocity" conversations only ever revolve around the first point.
- create an artifact
- learn from it
- make new decisions based on that learning
- update the artifact based on those decisions
But "velocity" conversations only ever revolve around the first point.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
