There's a lot of truth in this, but at the same time not every product/service/feature is going to make it, and it's much easier and cheaper to fail early rather than fail after many years. Also sometimes what might be a success in the hands of one person won't be in the hands of another due to their skills.
Separating things that are going to fail and those that might make it is the whole problem, and it's not something to be underestimated.
What’s sad is when things don’t fail, they just perform adequately and so get the ax. If it cost the company $500k to make $600k, that’s a decent small business, but for a large multinational that is a rounding error and the people may be redeployed in search of some C level’s bonus.
Comments
There's a lot of truth in this, but at the same time not every product/service/feature is going to make it, and it's much easier and cheaper to fail early rather than fail after many years. Also sometimes what might be a success in the hands of one person won't be in the hands of another due to their skills.
Separating things that are going to fail and those that might make it is the whole problem, and it's not something to be underestimated.
What’s sad is when things don’t fail, they just perform adequately and so get the ax. If it cost the company $500k to make $600k, that’s a decent small business, but for a large multinational that is a rounding error and the people may be redeployed in search of some C level’s bonus.
There's also opportunity cost. When all that people were involved in making 100K, they could have been working hard to make the company 10 million.
Both sides are not wrong, and thank God big companies operate this way otherwise small guys would never have any chance. It's already bad as it is.