Honestly, that feels like a huge waste of your own time to game a broken system. And I'm guessing it is, but that it's a defensive move because the darker timeline is miserable.
Sucks it has to be this way so often.
Sucks it has to be this way so often.
Does this really imply “humans are broken”? We all have limited resources and I think this could just be a first order prioritization mechanism. Of course one has to be aware of the bias but that’s a different problem.
Yeah it’s all perception, but cultivating the right perception is vital to effective, productive communication.
Polished things have a context of "use", not "evaluate", because we use so many polished things every day, but very rarely have any need to evaluate them (mostly only when we're buying them, or when a repair person asks us to describe what's wrong with them.) Whereas unpolished things are mostly "for" evaluating; it's rare that people use unpolished things (outside of, say, disaster-relief infrastructure.)
it's not a way of gaming the system, but a way of prompting better feedback. For instance, in a Design Thinking process prototypes are more useful when they look rough/unfinished. A more polished piece of work might result in people being afraid to break things.
I use both approaches in my work:
1) demo small, tested bits during show and tells and any meetings where the point is to demonstrate progress. 2) demo large, unfinished and barely stable pieces of work when ideating, trying to figure out the next steps
2) is hard and works only if: - we know what the unstable parts are (because we have tests, so we know the gaps) - we know the audience and how much context they have
The alternative is that they think you are done, adding more pressure, and requiring more wasted time later explaining the mis-aligned expectations.