> GLP-1 agonists (such as Novo's Ozempic) are another example in healthcare. Despite their effectiveness, Pfizer rejected GLP-1s in the 1990s because they would eat into their other product lines. It took over a decade before another company, Novo, commercialized them.
Pretty sure this happens all the time those days. Big corps being happy with status quo, and not doing X until a small motivated competitor does.
Novo Nordisk is the highest valued company in Europe, employs about 65k people, and has $35 billion revenue. It's not exactly what I call a "small" competitor – it's basically part of "big pharma".
More importantly, "Pfizer rejected GLP-1s in the 1990s because they would eat into their other product lines" is not an accurate reflection of the article it links. If you read the (rather lengthy) article then it seems more corporate politics, tunnel vision, and a small startup not being able to "sell a story" on this to investors such as Pfizer.
Having read the entire article, I fail to see how anyone can come away with that conclusion.
The education and health sections is a lesson that politics is unavoidable where interests clash. Recognizing that there are people who stand to lose from what you see as a good thing is really important, and understanding they will fight against it is vital. With that in mind it's clear that in such cases documentation is not enough - you actually need to go fight for it too.
I do recognize that sometimes interests align broadly enough that taking action shouldn't need a fight over interests. The hand sanitizing example is one such case. This is where laying out the case and winning hearts and minds could be enough.
So where is the "case for documentation"? The author provides no vision and no actionable recommendations. Documentation is not even mentioned until the end of the article.
Anyone can pat themselves on the back for pointing to the worlds problems and saying "this could be better!"
It's easy to say "document what you can" when you leave "document", "what", and "can" loosely undefined. The article gives us a why and then leaves out the who, what, when, where and how.
If you observe people in their daily work, you will see there are many reasons why people do not document things. Time constraints, incentive structures, liability, general trade-offs and ambiguities. This is true not just in software/engineering but in any line of professional work.
There's plenty of grandstanding about the importance of documentation, but not much interest in understanding why people don't document in the first place.
10 comments
[ 5.0 ms ] story [ 43.2 ms ] threadPretty sure this happens all the time those days. Big corps being happy with status quo, and not doing X until a small motivated competitor does.
More importantly, "Pfizer rejected GLP-1s in the 1990s because they would eat into their other product lines" is not an accurate reflection of the article it links. If you read the (rather lengthy) article then it seems more corporate politics, tunnel vision, and a small startup not being able to "sell a story" on this to investors such as Pfizer.
Having read the entire article, I fail to see how anyone can come away with that conclusion.
I do recognize that sometimes interests align broadly enough that taking action shouldn't need a fight over interests. The hand sanitizing example is one such case. This is where laying out the case and winning hearts and minds could be enough.
Anyone can pat themselves on the back for pointing to the worlds problems and saying "this could be better!"
you document what you can now in hope someone down the line uses it like the German guy and nightingale
If you observe people in their daily work, you will see there are many reasons why people do not document things. Time constraints, incentive structures, liability, general trade-offs and ambiguities. This is true not just in software/engineering but in any line of professional work.
There's plenty of grandstanding about the importance of documentation, but not much interest in understanding why people don't document in the first place.