Like many others in the comments, I feel there are a lot of assumptions in this piece. Before, coding is only 14% therefore, small slice. I think that's a very superficial assumption. That was because coding was expensive and we needed to be sure we didn't code the wrong thing. If code is as cheap as it is now, we will optimize differently, we will structure around it. Instead of so many meetings we will code 5 different versions of the same thing and choose, etc.

▲

AdieuToLogic 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> That was because coding was expensive and we needed to be sure we didn't code the wrong thing.

Coding has never been expensive as it is nothing more than a reification of a solution to a problem as it is understood at that time.

It is the underlying understanding of the problem which has always been expensive and remains so.

▲

lz400 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Coding was expensive in the sense that once you decided what to do, it took a few engineers months / years to do moderately complex projects. That's not true anymore. Therefore the risk of "coding the wrong thing" is less.

	▲	gmueckl an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Is it? The temptation to start without a thorough design is now much stronger because the implementation osnperceived to be cheap and easy to replace. But if you start building the wrong thing fast, you still get the right thing later than when you had checked properly at the start.

▲

champagnepapi 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

So you're suggesting that coding will take more of the PRD phase?

	▲	lz400 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Basically yes, there will be more coding in that phase, more prototyping, the PRD phases will be shorter too, there will be more pressure to deliver quickly and the PRDs will be under more pressure to move more quickly. This is what I'm already seeing to be honest.