> Are their business strategies that favour slower more careful engineering practises?
This is a false dichotomy, and there is plenty of research (and experience) that shows shipping higher quality software actually takes less time and money.
This is a false dichotomy, and there is plenty of research (and experience) that shows shipping higher quality software actually takes less time and money.
I believe you when the business knows exactly what it's building. In the context of the article and the comment I was responding to, building high quality software wouldn't have helped them early on, thats kinda the whole point of tech debt and the discussion here. Knowing when is the right time to start changing the engineering culture and how easy (or hard) it is to do that.
My experience would suggest shipping higher quality software is a lot cheaper in the long run, but has up-front costs that often times startups can't afford.
They could have shipped higher quality software quicker by hiring 2 senior developers for similar cost.
Slapping it together pays off today but at the cost of acquiring a debt that costs lower average velocity and lower agility until its repaid.
A lot of small businesses make the decision to take on debt to move quickly at the beginning because the most important thing is initial growth and proving that you can actually make money.