Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ok, but some tasks are less valuable and take more time to do, but are completely necessary. How do you value something like that? What if the "value" is actually less than the cost of the task (but it's still absolutely necessary)? And if a task has an internal price on it, but the development time slips, to the point it exceeds the price, do you stop development? I think this method is interesting, but I have a fee…
> What if the "value" is actually less than the cost of the task (but it's still absolutely necessary)? This is a false premise. But it's surprising how many people seem to hold it, to their peril. > I have a feeling that all you're doing is shifting the complexity around. The underlying complexity is still there That's right, but do you agree this approach moves it to a place where it makes more sense, where it info…
I have no idea. I don't know enough about the approach to assess it. I like the idea of it, but I'd be concerned about the method of valuation. There's a lot of hand-waving in corporate accounting and the value of anything in a company is mostly a made-up number (enforced occasionally by accounting standards). I'd be concerned that all it does is externalise (and therefore politicise) the kind of decisions that a good CTO normally makes internally.
> It's not impossible
I should have refined my statement. It's impossible to give a definitive estimate for software development. You can definitely give a probablistic one (which I think is what you're talking about), but that's usually unacceptable to the rest of the executive team. Educating the rest of the executive team to think in probabilities sounds harder than just telling them "no you can't have a definitive deadline" ;)