I think the phrase "failing fast," though pithy, brings some negative connotations with it. It's not "failure" to discover discrepancies, uncover opportunities, adapt features to changing demands.
In the realm of flying, an aircraft is considered to be "in trim" when the smaller control surfaces (trim tabs) are adjusted to compensate for cross winds, in order for the pilot's inputs to result in the expected directional changes. These are purely at the whim of the current wind and pressure conditions, and a change in direction, altitude, even speed, can require new trim corrections to be made. Similar concepts govern sailing: sails, balance, and rudder surfaces are frequently adjusted to compensate for the seas. In both situations, a very dynamic environment is responsible for the aviator/sailor to make changes. In neither of these situations is the aviator/sailor said to be "doing it wrong."
I think this applies elsewhere nearly universally. (I'm sure new parents will agree: no matter how many books you read, our own children respond uniquely to our efforts.) What you learned yesterday may not apply today. The world we live in changes constantly. Software users have changing needs, and expectations, and a developer must balance those dynamic needs against stability of the product. All bugs may be "shallow" under the scrutiny of nearly unlimited eyeballs, but the number of proposed fixes are varied as well ... and those expectations change frequently, depending on the defect or enhancement.
In my view, adapting frequently to these myriad demands and expectations shouldn't be viewed as "failures," but as course corrections, without judgment. A change may be good for some, disastrous for others; the solution may be to roll back to the previous state, or innovate further. Rolling back isn't failure, and innovation isn't necessarily successful. Both are adapting to needs that perhaps weren't previously apparent, or conditions that changed rapidly. "Rolling with the punches" is part of working in an open, dynamic environment, and as you said, can be a great strength.
I stopped using Facebook when I kept getting caught unawares by games "apps" that friends were sending that, once I participated, put things on my page that I didn't realize they would. One also signed me up for a $20 monthly cell phone charge without my approval. (No, really. The last message from them said something like, "Answer YES to sign up...." They had already done so. :P ) What these things did wasn't make clear up front ... it was hidden in the click-wrap details that no one wants to read (certainly while socializing).
There were so many cutesie little apps that people kept sending to me (or maybe they hadn't sent it, just clicked "OK" thinking they were just installing it), it got to be more than an annoyance, it was time-consuming just to visit the site. I'm sure this looked good to Faceless and its investors, but for this user it just became unusable. If I'd stopped to read all the fine print for every little "martini" or "farm fresh veggie" I got sent ... I'd have spent 8 hours a day just answering messages. Heck with that.
Authored Comments
I think the phrase "failing fast," though pithy, brings some negative connotations with it. It's not "failure" to discover discrepancies, uncover opportunities, adapt features to changing demands.
In the realm of flying, an aircraft is considered to be "in trim" when the smaller control surfaces (trim tabs) are adjusted to compensate for cross winds, in order for the pilot's inputs to result in the expected directional changes. These are purely at the whim of the current wind and pressure conditions, and a change in direction, altitude, even speed, can require new trim corrections to be made. Similar concepts govern sailing: sails, balance, and rudder surfaces are frequently adjusted to compensate for the seas. In both situations, a very dynamic environment is responsible for the aviator/sailor to make changes. In neither of these situations is the aviator/sailor said to be "doing it wrong."
I think this applies elsewhere nearly universally. (I'm sure new parents will agree: no matter how many books you read, our own children respond uniquely to our efforts.) What you learned yesterday may not apply today. The world we live in changes constantly. Software users have changing needs, and expectations, and a developer must balance those dynamic needs against stability of the product. All bugs may be "shallow" under the scrutiny of nearly unlimited eyeballs, but the number of proposed fixes are varied as well ... and those expectations change frequently, depending on the defect or enhancement.
In my view, adapting frequently to these myriad demands and expectations shouldn't be viewed as "failures," but as course corrections, without judgment. A change may be good for some, disastrous for others; the solution may be to roll back to the previous state, or innovate further. Rolling back isn't failure, and innovation isn't necessarily successful. Both are adapting to needs that perhaps weren't previously apparent, or conditions that changed rapidly. "Rolling with the punches" is part of working in an open, dynamic environment, and as you said, can be a great strength.
I stopped using Facebook when I kept getting caught unawares by games "apps" that friends were sending that, once I participated, put things on my page that I didn't realize they would. One also signed me up for a $20 monthly cell phone charge without my approval. (No, really. The last message from them said something like, "Answer YES to sign up...." They had already done so. :P ) What these things did wasn't make clear up front ... it was hidden in the click-wrap details that no one wants to read (certainly while socializing).
There were so many cutesie little apps that people kept sending to me (or maybe they hadn't sent it, just clicked "OK" thinking they were just installing it), it got to be more than an annoyance, it was time-consuming just to visit the site. I'm sure this looked good to Faceless and its investors, but for this user it just became unusable. If I'd stopped to read all the fine print for every little "martini" or "farm fresh veggie" I got sent ... I'd have spent 8 hours a day just answering messages. Heck with that.