DEV Community

loading...

Discussion on: The business case for shipping more often

Collapse
jillesvangurp profile image
Jilles van Gurp

There's an additional argument to be made here: time to market. The life cycle of a feature from inception to ceasing to be relevant is that there is a point in time where it starts generating business value. The time before that is cost and the time after until it is taken out or the product dies is the aggregate value the feature will generate throughout its life. Put simply, you want to maximize the latter and minimize the former. The counter intuitive thing is that for a lot of features, shipping early really matters as software tends to have a limited shelf life and competitors will be eager to copy successful features. Being late to market can make a dramatic difference for the overall value generated. This can get to the point where being 10x better at the cost of a few months extra development is completely wiped out by the fact that you are too late.

So unnecessary delays are bad for business. Being late eats into the overall value you will be able to derive from development. Modern software development competes on cycle times. A year can make the difference between owning a market and having to write off expensive R&D.

Collapse
gavincampbell profile image
Gavin Campbell Author

Yes, this is a good point, though it might have been stretching the metaphor a bit too far to introduce the "Cragel" as a threat to our business model!