Adam Jacob

Because as the landscape changes, as your experience of actually writing the code, the truth of the system, plus the the exterior landscape of what's happening in the world, those things will always manipulate your roadmap in some way or another.

And so by keeping the focus on these high-level themes and the broad strokes of what you think needs to happen in there, it also gives you the space to move those things around without really changing strategic direction.

And so by keeping the focus on these high-level themes and the broad strokes of what you think needs to happen in there, it also gives you the space to move those things around without really changing strategic direction.

And so by keeping the focus on these high-level themes and the broad strokes of what you think needs to happen in there, it also gives you the space to move those things around without really changing strategic direction.

John Lewis Gaddis, who is a professor, wrote a book called On Grand Strategy, and he defines strategy as how you connect your limited resources to your unlimited aspirations across time, space, and scale. And that is what roadmaps do, right? So you want to keep the high-level scale and scope in the roadmap to be high and flexible.

John Lewis Gaddis, who is a professor, wrote a book called On Grand Strategy, and he defines strategy as how you connect your limited resources to your unlimited aspirations across time, space, and scale. And that is what roadmaps do, right? So you want to keep the high-level scale and scope in the roadmap to be high and flexible.

John Lewis Gaddis, who is a professor, wrote a book called On Grand Strategy, and he defines strategy as how you connect your limited resources to your unlimited aspirations across time, space, and scale. And that is what roadmaps do, right? So you want to keep the high-level scale and scope in the roadmap to be high and flexible.

And then when it gets down to the ground truth, engineers typing on keyboards, you want to be pretty specific about how what they're doing attaches to that higher-level concept.

And then when it gets down to the ground truth, engineers typing on keyboards, you want to be pretty specific about how what they're doing attaches to that higher-level concept.

And then when it gets down to the ground truth, engineers typing on keyboards, you want to be pretty specific about how what they're doing attaches to that higher-level concept.

A lot of the metaphors we use to describe businesses and describe software engineering come from the idea of a factory. So they tend to come from factory optimization. So lean, agile, a lot of that stuff was very steeped in Deming. And Deming was doing factory optimization. And so when we talk about it, the metaphors we use very frequently are similar to the ideas we use in factory optimization.

A lot of the metaphors we use to describe businesses and describe software engineering come from the idea of a factory. So they tend to come from factory optimization. So lean, agile, a lot of that stuff was very steeped in Deming. And Deming was doing factory optimization. And so when we talk about it, the metaphors we use very frequently are similar to the ideas we use in factory optimization.

A lot of the metaphors we use to describe businesses and describe software engineering come from the idea of a factory. So they tend to come from factory optimization. So lean, agile, a lot of that stuff was very steeped in Deming. And Deming was doing factory optimization. And so when we talk about it, the metaphors we use very frequently are similar to the ideas we use in factory optimization.

That metaphor and the way it causes us to think about building companies and teams is bad. It doesn't fit very well to the truth. The truth is people also don't love sports metaphors, but sports, professional sports in particular, are a much better analogy for what it's like to build great software engineering teams.

That metaphor and the way it causes us to think about building companies and teams is bad. It doesn't fit very well to the truth. The truth is people also don't love sports metaphors, but sports, professional sports in particular, are a much better analogy for what it's like to build great software engineering teams.

That metaphor and the way it causes us to think about building companies and teams is bad. It doesn't fit very well to the truth. The truth is people also don't love sports metaphors, but sports, professional sports in particular, are a much better analogy for what it's like to build great software engineering teams.

These are highly trained teams of experts who work autonomously to achieve an objective, and you have to keep them operating at that high level over a long period of time. You can't observe a team in isolation, so you can't look at a single day's effort from an engineer and predict anything about the outcomes of that engineer's work, right?

These are highly trained teams of experts who work autonomously to achieve an objective, and you have to keep them operating at that high level over a long period of time. You can't observe a team in isolation, so you can't look at a single day's effort from an engineer and predict anything about the outcomes of that engineer's work, right?

These are highly trained teams of experts who work autonomously to achieve an objective, and you have to keep them operating at that high level over a long period of time. You can't observe a team in isolation, so you can't look at a single day's effort from an engineer and predict anything about the outcomes of that engineer's work, right?

It just takes time to understand what the actual outcomes of any individual engineering choice or any individual product feature would be. We have to figure out how to teach people to be the best athlete that they can be. In the case of a software engineer, if you think about them the same way you would think about someone on a basketball team, like you gotta train them. I have to drill them.