On the limits of Ready Fire Aim product development

Applying “Ready Fire Aim” prod dev methods indiscriminately is dangerous. Don’t apply it to healthcare (just consider the history of Theranos) and don’t apply it to driveless cars (just consider recent history of Tesla’s “autopilot”).

Not everyone agrees with me. A quick read of “Ready. Fire. Aim (or failure is an option, and four steps to get there” surfaces an entirely opposite opinion voiced by a business catering to product development requirements for medicine. I should note the Stratos article was published in 2014.

One need only read “Agony, Alarm, and Anger for People Hurt By Theranos’s Botched Blood Tests” to, tragically, capture the evidence I claim supports my position — the right way to go.

Opinions voiced by academic researchers on the topic of how to safely develop driverless cars appear to be more cautious, but is this true?

In a podcast published by the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, Wharton Management Professor John Paul Duffie states the following with reference to a recent auto fatality associated with a Tesla vehicle and its AutoPilot feature:

“‘Tesla, as they often have, pushed the envelope a bit in claiming that autopilot was ready for use by drivers’” (quoted from “What’s Ahead for Driverless Technology?”).

In my opinion when the subject is the death of a person as the result of, at best, a misuse of the advertised capability of technology or, at worst, the result of technology not working correctly, the use of the phrase “a bit” is a dangerous and unacceptable understatement.

Bottom line: “Ready, fire, aim” prod dev methods should not be used by businesses building new technical solutions for either of these industries.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.