Comments on: Our Highest Priority http://www.pavley.com/2009/10/08/our-highest-priority/ “A great leap in the dark” – Thomas Hobbes Mon, 17 May 2010 19:27:50 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: uberVU - social comments http://www.pavley.com/2009/10/08/our-highest-priority/comment-page-1/#comment-224 uberVU - social comments Fri, 29 Jan 2010 12:06:38 +0000 http://www.pavley.com/?p=73#comment-224 <strong>Social comments and analytics for this post...</strong> This post was mentioned on Twitter by AkitaOnRails: Thoughts on Agile Manifesto's 1st principle: http://bit.ly/bMvSsS and http://bit.ly/cNupct... Social comments and analytics for this post…

This post was mentioned on Twitter by AkitaOnRails: Thoughts on Agile Manifesto’s 1st principle: http://bit.ly/bMvSsS and http://bit.ly/cNupct…

]]> By: Tweets that mention Blog Pav Blog › Our Highest Priority -- Topsy.com http://www.pavley.com/2009/10/08/our-highest-priority/comment-page-1/#comment-223 Tweets that mention Blog Pav Blog › Our Highest Priority -- Topsy.com Fri, 29 Jan 2010 02:36:59 +0000 http://www.pavley.com/?p=73#comment-223 [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Fabio Akita, Diego Carrion, Rodrigo Panachi, Maurício Fagundes, Felipe Pedrini and others. Felipe Pedrini said: Our (software developers) highest priority http://bit.ly/byMaE9 [...] [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Fabio Akita, Diego Carrion, Rodrigo Panachi, Maurício Fagundes, Felipe Pedrini and others. Felipe Pedrini said: Our (software developers) highest priority http://bit.ly/byMaE9 [...]

]]> By: pav http://www.pavley.com/2009/10/08/our-highest-priority/comment-page-1/#comment-75 pav Mon, 12 Oct 2009 21:17:49 +0000 http://www.pavley.com/?p=73#comment-75 Good point Andrey. Wealth, as defined by Graham seems to be an expansive concept. I'll have to dig deeper into his essay but I like a lot of what I see. Mostly though I want to measure value independent of dollars and sense. I don't know how to measure fun. (<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4auC4-1XNQ" rel="nofollow">six flags... more fun?</a>) Good point Andrey. Wealth, as defined by Graham seems to be an expansive concept. I’ll have to dig deeper into his essay but I like a lot of what I see. Mostly though I want to measure value independent of dollars and sense. I don’t know how to measure fun. (six flags… more fun?)

]]> By: Andrey Fedorov http://www.pavley.com/2009/10/08/our-highest-priority/comment-page-1/#comment-74 Andrey Fedorov Mon, 12 Oct 2009 17:25:38 +0000 http://www.pavley.com/?p=73#comment-74 Re: "a workable definition of value that includes both saving labor and entertainment", how about Paul Graham's <a href="http://www.paulgraham.com/ideas.html" rel="nofollow">definition of "wealth"</a>: "Wealth is what people want. I don't mean that as some kind of philosophical statement; I mean it as a tautology." A lot of people want to save their labor - they want whatever it is that they're doing manually to be automated (and if <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite" rel="nofollow">they don't</a>, their bosses certainly do). Re: “a workable definition of value that includes both saving labor and entertainment”, how about Paul Graham’s definition of “wealth”:

“Wealth is what people want. I don’t mean that as some kind of philosophical statement; I mean it as a tautology.”

A lot of people want to save their labor – they want whatever it is that they’re doing manually to be automated (and if they don’t, their bosses certainly do).

]]> By: pav http://www.pavley.com/2009/10/08/our-highest-priority/comment-page-1/#comment-73 pav Mon, 12 Oct 2009 15:43:02 +0000 http://www.pavley.com/?p=73#comment-73 I got feedback on this post from Parshu, Josh, James, and Gareth (in person, in email, and on facebook) and I want to consolidate my responses here. First, thanks everyone for your comments! Second I just want to clarify a couple of things: A.) Utility is hard to measure. Automation of a task is not. So that is the only reason I went with the idea that value == labor and the value of software is the labor saved. B.) Agile has it's warts and one of them is how to deal with big projects: Especially where value can't be perceived (i.e., measured) until a large deliverable of work is released. Thus the idea of breaking large projects into smaller continuous deliverables means the value might not be realized with each release and thus not valuable at all. This issue is addressed in later principles (#3 and #7 specifically). I'll get to those principles eventually but if you are impatient the measure of progress is not value in Agile but rather the delivery of working software. As long as with each release I give you a system that works that's progress we can measure. Value will come eventually! Trust me :) I got feedback on this post from Parshu, Josh, James, and Gareth (in person, in email, and on facebook) and I want to consolidate my responses here. First, thanks everyone for your comments! Second I just want to clarify a couple of things: A.) Utility is hard to measure. Automation of a task is not. So that is the only reason I went with the idea that value == labor and the value of software is the labor saved. B.) Agile has it’s warts and one of them is how to deal with big projects: Especially where value can’t be perceived (i.e., measured) until a large deliverable of work is released. Thus the idea of breaking large projects into smaller continuous deliverables means the value might not be realized with each release and thus not valuable at all. This issue is addressed in later principles (#3 and #7 specifically). I’ll get to those principles eventually but if you are impatient the measure of progress is not value in Agile but rather the delivery of working software. As long as with each release I give you a system that works that’s progress we can measure. Value will come eventually! Trust me :)

]]> By: pav http://www.pavley.com/2009/10/08/our-highest-priority/comment-page-1/#comment-65 pav Fri, 09 Oct 2009 01:17:54 +0000 http://www.pavley.com/?p=73#comment-65 Thanks James! I would love to find a workable definition of value that includes both saving labor and entertainment (avoiding labor?). Thanks James! I would love to find a workable definition of value that includes both saving labor and entertainment (avoiding labor?).

]]> By: James http://www.pavley.com/2009/10/08/our-highest-priority/comment-page-1/#comment-64 James Fri, 09 Oct 2009 00:11:38 +0000 http://www.pavley.com/?p=73#comment-64 Marvelous article. The ultimate measure of value is use. If people use it, want more of it, want to use it again, then it is valuable. Customers may use software because it saves labor and, in some cases, labor savings is the value it offers, but customers can value a product (including software) for reasons other than labor savings. Twitter is an example. Game software is another. OTOH, software that saves labor but is never used is not valuable. Early home automation applications are an example. Marvelous article. The ultimate measure of value is use. If people use it, want more of it, want to use it again, then it is valuable. Customers may use software because it saves labor and, in some cases, labor savings is the value it offers, but customers can value a product (including software) for reasons other than labor savings. Twitter is an example. Game software is another. OTOH, software that saves labor but is never used is not valuable. Early home automation applications are an example.

]]> By: pav http://www.pavley.com/2009/10/08/our-highest-priority/comment-page-1/#comment-63 pav Thu, 08 Oct 2009 22:09:23 +0000 http://www.pavley.com/?p=73#comment-63 If Twitter saves some labor then I'm ok with it! If Twitter saves some labor then I’m ok with it!

]]> By: Parshu http://www.pavley.com/2009/10/08/our-highest-priority/comment-page-1/#comment-62 Parshu Thu, 08 Oct 2009 22:02:29 +0000 http://www.pavley.com/?p=73#comment-62 OMG! Are you saying twitter is not valuable? That is what you are saying. I think that is the whole point of this post, isn't it? :) OMG! Are you saying twitter is not valuable? That is what you are saying. I think that is the whole point of this post, isn’t it? :)

]]>