A bad example and a leap of faith here : “they use maps to collaborate” — no, they don’t. They have established heavily defined protocols and a common language for operating together — doctrine in fact. I like the idea of a “common language” between IT and Finance, but I don’t think maps are it, I think $’s are it — by default. $’s are the common…
Okay I’ll concede the use of economic, but would still prefer to see some quantitive evidence for the assertion that the redistribution of effort pays off.
The original pyramid doesn’t show a distribution of effort, it shows a distribution in number of tests — and unit tests are fundamentally simpler to write than any other…
Perhaps it was your use of “economic” — if you meant “efficient” it would have been a better word to use. An economic model would be mathematical by definition.
Similarly, Lean (with a capital L) doesn’t mean “without fat” — it is a rich philosophy that espouses much more than reduction based on cost.
You claim an “economic” approach to testing and yet present no kind of mathematical model at all to support your supposition. You also misappropriate the word “Lean” in much the same way the “Lean Startup” community has, cherry picking a very specific lean idea in the pursuit of a foregone conclusion.
Programming is neither art nor engineering, but it isn’t unique. Think architecture (the real not virtual kind) or fashion or design. One school of thought says art places form over function and few kinds of programming do that. Is your code pretty to look at? Is it elegant? Perhaps. But that distinction is in the eye of the beholder, not the author.