Inspired by the views on iterative development that I heard before, I deliberately posted the picture of the Lean MVP above, and let's talk about it together.
1. Each stage of delivery is meaningful to the user, right? This point of view is not intended to be elaborated or touted in detail, and colleagues who have done lean or agile also know the importance of this method;
2. Each new link represents the overthrow-reconstruction of some old modules. But is this reconstruction a reconstruction from 0 to 1? Let me list the details for you:
The second stage [Skateboard becomes scooter stage]
It is found here that there is an extra steering wheel, the purpose is to improve user safety (anti-fall) and user convenience (direction control is shifted from body center of gravity control to two-hand control). The whole process does not involve the transformation of the old module, it is purely functional increment;
The fourth stage [bicycle becomes motorcycle]
There are quite a lot of changes inside. I think it can be divided into disruptive innovation and incremental innovation.
-
The seat is more comfortable, and the wheel + brake structure is more complicated. In my understanding, this is an incremental innovation. What is incremental innovation, it refers to the continuous optimization and improvement of existing technologies/functions, and its essence remains unchanged.
-
In addition, looking at the power system, bicycles are pedaled by people, but motorcycles rely on gasoline combustion to drive the piston to move forward to generate forward power. This is definitely a subversive innovation.
A bunch of nonsense. What do you want to express above? What I want to express above is that each stage is improved based on the results of the previous stage, some are improved and optimized, and some are destructive. This article wants to say to programmers including me, although we programmers all have a Virgo complex: we hope everything is perfect, the overall system planning is in front, and the system is built step by step. Each stage is adhering to The output of the previous stage is optimized iteratively by "non-destructive"; but in reality, the next iteration will be a "destructive" reconstruction of the previous iteration. Destructiveness does not mean that it is meaningless, at least it means that we An iterative version may fail and require reinvention and trial and error.
Therefore, when we are building a system, the value of technology lies in the value we continue to bring to the business, not because of the use of certain new technologies and the writing of awesome code. Don't feel discouraged even if we encounter a function of one of our iterations being completely abandoned, at least it represents another step forward for us on the right path, and we must always believe in this. (This article is written in a hurry and a bit messy, but it is mainly to express my feelings.)