Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can't speak for OP, but I've had more than a few similar experiences (from both sides of the fence FWIW). I can think of one example in software deployment frequency. The observation (many years ago), was that it's painful and risky (therefore, expensive) to deploy software, so we should do it as infrequently as the market will allow. Many companies used to be on annual release schedules, some even longer. Many organ…
I don't see why a slow deployment cadence is a nightmare. When I've worked in that setting, it mostly didn't matter to me when something got deployed. When it did (e.g. because something was broken), we had a process in place to deploy only high priority fixes between normal releases. Computers mostly just continue to work when you don't change anything, so that meant after the first week or so after a release, the c…
The amount of politicking was incredible when it came to which features would be in the next push and which features would slip. The planning meetings, the arguments, the capability slashing, the instability that came from all these political decisions. It was not great and this enormous amount of churn literally disappeared when they moved to daily pushes.