<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/1.5.2" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Done ain&#8217;t necessarily better than perfect</title>
	<link>http://www.scrambledbrains.net/2013/06/06/done-is-not-necessarily-better-than-perfect/</link>
	<description>All things Mike McGranahan.</description>
	<pubDate>Wed, 06 May 2026 03:58:16 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=1.5.2</generator>

	<item>
 		<title>Comment on Done ain&#8217;t necessarily better than perfect by: The Law of Brittleness</title>
		<link>http://www.scrambledbrains.net/2013/06/06/done-is-not-necessarily-better-than-perfect/#comment-115335</link>
		<pubDate>Fri, 14 Feb 2014 23:00:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.scrambledbrains.net/2013/06/06/done-is-not-necessarily-better-than-perfect/#comment-115335</guid>
					<description>[...] The idea of technical debt is critical to work-life balance and to customer relationships. However, many companies these days seem willing to carry that debt, obsessed with a &amp;#8220;move fast/break things&amp;#8221; culture where any efforts resembling code perfection are feverishly rejected. But technical debt is a strategic concern, so one would think all those business strategists in their fancy suits would find want to address it. Without adequate recognition, the emphasis inadvertently shifts from &amp;#8220;moving fast&amp;#8221; to &amp;#8220;breaking things&amp;#8221;. I believe this lack of due attention is largely a matter of poor communication by engineers with stakeholders. Technical debt is often misrepresented as a temporary issue. &amp;#8220;Give us a week to erase this technical debt.&amp;#8221; On the other hand, saying &amp;#8220;Each work item carries with it a 15% implementation tax to mitigate technical debt&amp;#8221; is no more reassuring. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>[&#8230;] The idea of technical debt is critical to work-life balance and to customer relationships. However, many companies these days seem willing to carry that debt, obsessed with a &#8220;move fast/break things&#8221; culture where any efforts resembling code perfection are feverishly rejected. But technical debt is a strategic concern, so one would think all those business strategists in their fancy suits would find want to address it. Without adequate recognition, the emphasis inadvertently shifts from &#8220;moving fast&#8221; to &#8220;breaking things&#8221;. I believe this lack of due attention is largely a matter of poor communication by engineers with stakeholders. Technical debt is often misrepresented as a temporary issue. &#8220;Give us a week to erase this technical debt.&#8221; On the other hand, saying &#8220;Each work item carries with it a 15% implementation tax to mitigate technical debt&#8221; is no more reassuring. [&#8230;]
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>
