1: Another way of saying what I'm saying: tech teams have an "architecture bias" that *overweights* expected benefits of arch improvements
-
-
3: enough time horizon. Perversely, if people are always agitating for arch changes, the time horizon is always too short for the gains to
Show this thread -
4: materialize. Ironically, it's only by being very conservative with architecture changes can you get long enough time horizon for the
Show this thread -
5/5: expected exponential gains to arrive. So you need both a willingness to do big changes and the discipline to do it infrequently.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Well said, now can you do it in a single tweet so I can retweet it? Might need a language/framework change to get the efficiency required.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
often these communication / process improvements are necessary for successful adoption of architectural changes.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I would also add: relative to the opportunity cost of focusing on communication / process improvements.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.