1. 6
  1.  

  2. 1

    I think you’ve painted a picture of how to deal with a project that can only have binary value. However; I don’t think you’ve demonstrated the key claim, that there are types of work that only have binary value, not accretive.

    Why does this microservice rework have to be all or nothing? Why does CI have to build a whole new world of deployment that entirely replaces everything exists before? Or even taking SoC2, is there really no work with accretive value that also makes passing a SoC2 easier?

    My own perspective is very much influenced by doing a “binary project” that was only binary because it was badly designed. Of course, there were reasons that the accretive approach was hard, but it still would’ve done so much to lower the risk of the entire project.

    1. 1

      The trivial example is compliance, and this is mentioned in the piece already so I won’t repeat it. But it’s canonically binary in a specific value delivery. Sure, you can construct /other/ value around that which might be accretive but that’s missing the point entirely: you found accretive value, but that is necessarily its own, different value.

      1. 1

        You are identifying goals that have only binary value, not goals that must be pursued via ways of working that have only binary value. But the latter is what you need to justify, I think.