we should just be straightforward, say "we built the wrong thing" and then ask how we built the right-er thing.
The kind of optionality I'm talking about in software projects is not so clean to account as the financial instrument, but it has real value in just the same way.
If it were so easy to decide what the right thing is to build before you build it then business would be easy.
That's the whole reason options have value. Having 3 shippable products ready to go when you can only effectively ship 1 puts the whole team in a much better position than choosing 1, focusing everyone on it, and hoping you hit the lottery with product-market fit.
So yes, an engineer may work on something that doesn't ship. That doesn't retroactively make their effort worthless, and that's not even counting the experience gained by the endeavor which may well pay off on the next round of products to ship.
It's not easy. That's why it's important to be straightforward and just move on without all the navel gazing.
> ... hoping you hit the lottery with product-market fit.
There's this thing called "research" where you talk to real people, instead of guessing.
> That doesn't retroactively make their effort worthless
No-one said building the wrong thing was worthless. Life is one continuous mistake.
---
we are saying mostly the same thing i'm pretty sure, especially in your other comment reply (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48498912). although i feel you're dressing it up a little too much for my liking. i prefer being a lot more plain and direct about it (and probably a bit arsey).
ruthlessness is an asset when it comes to we built the wrong thing. ruthlessness gets us moving on faster.
Obviously you should talk to people.
But that doesn't lead to guarantees of product-market fit. People can describe their problems, but they usually can't describe the solution. If they already knew the solution they'd likely have already addressed the problem!
> ruthlessness is an asset when it comes to we built the wrong thing. ruthlessness gets us moving on faster.
Sure, I think we are sort of saying the same thing. I'm saying you should work on it even though it may be ruthlessly rejected later, potentially even without ever shipping.
It's part of the game and it's not worth crying over. The ruthless thing is to acknowledge the work you did, that it had value to whoever was paying you to do it, and then move on to the next thing.
To me all your "I prefer being plain and direct" just sounds like someone who hasn't thought much about why building the wrong thing is not worthless, and why those continuous mistakes in life are worthwhile, and isn't really interested in thinking about things at more than the surface level.
It does seem like you aren't really disagreeing with us here. But you're just saying "don't make me think about why we agree about this!"
