You're faced with a deadline dilemma in system design. How do you decide between innovation and reliability?

For me Innovation and reliability are not interdependent. > Innovation cannot be time driven and cannot be forced into deadlines. > Reliability is process driven. It comes from the meticulous adherence to processes considering all the past learnings. A innovative product can be reliable, but again the development process has to be followed.

I call it the Pain v. Pleasure pendulm. Yes, you may have some real innovations, but they must be integrated safely and reliably into whatever system you’re designing. And the amount of risk you may take is in direct proportion to resources and deadline. I used to produce television news. And each night some crew would be running late editing their story. I’d ask, “Are you going to make it?” The response was often, “I’m close!” I got burned once on a big newscast, so I started making the hard call. If it wasn’t ready, I’d move it down farther into the show, which they hated, But it wasn’t about them. Same holds true for your innovators. Unless you have a closet for them and unlimited time, they need to meet the deadline.

One proven way to weigh the potential risk is to follow industry safety/security standards and analyse the innovation/system thoroughly, with least assumptions and more factual data. For example ISO 26262 for automotive electrical safety and DO-254 for Aviation. These standards provide comprehensive guidelines to design/modify systems including innovative ones. Also this analysis is helpful to assess the efforts/cost required in implementing, testing and maintaining the product throughout its lifecycle. This way the cost, efforts and time required to implement an innovation safely and reliably can be assessed against the value addition the innovation can have.

Quando nos deparamos com o dilema entre inova??o e confiabilidade no design de sistemas, a avalia??o dos riscos se torna essencial. A inova??o é atraente e pode posicionar sua empresa à frente da concorrência, mas o que está em jogo? A confiabilidade é a espinha dorsal de qualquer sistema, especialmente em setores onde a falha n?o é uma op??o. Ao pesar os riscos, é crucial analisar fatores como a maturidade da tecnologia, a expectativa dos usuários e o impacto de possíveis falhas. Uma abordagem equilibrada permite a integra??o de inova??es sem comprometer a estabilidade. Em última análise, a decis?o deve ser guiada pela capacidade de entregar valor ao cliente de maneira sustentável.

While the allure of adding new features or improvements can be strong, it's crucial to maintain discipline in project management. Scope creep, if left unchecked, can derail even the most promising projects. By establishing clear boundaries, fostering open communication, and implementing robust change management processes, project managers can keep their initiatives on track. Remember, a successfully completed project that meets its core objectives is far more valuable than an overambitious one that fails to deliver. Balancing innovation with practicality is key.

Innovation is our indispensible fuel and should never be our enemy. What an odd question. AI, is that you? I think the intended question relates to the constant pressure to allow late-stage feature / requirements changes. The answer is never no. Drive a risk and consequences assessment, then talk truth to power, sharing the relative risks and rewards with the purse holders. They'll make the world crystal clear. Deadlines are rarely set in stone. Sometimes a new feature will be compelling enough for the business leaders to consider (or push for) a delay. You just gotta ask. The SE's job is to continuously communicate across all engineering and business stakeholders, framing the tradeoffs to enable informed decisions.

Innovating a system needs to be studied properly so that not to allow scope loss or to have undefined work scope, otherwise, will bring difficulties, cost impact and eventually hidden time delays to the project. In other hands, if deadline meeting is crucial, applying innovation will definitely bring scope inaccuracies due to insufficient studies over scope breaks. Reliability, in other hands, as was mentioned above, shall not be dealt with as an easy negligible factor. If deadly time limits are pushing the designer, safety measures shall take a large portion of your limited time.

Beware of scope creep — that sneaky villain disguised as new ideas. It's tempting to add extra details, but it's better to deliver the basics well than to get lost in embellishments and end up delaying the delivery. Clearly define what's essential and stay focused to ensure a flawless result.

When deciding between innovation and reliability, focus on what users need. Find out if they prefer new features or a dependable system. Use their feedback to make your choice, as a reliable system that meets user expectations often succeeds more than an innovative one that doesn’t perform consistently.

When deciding between innovation and reliability, consider the needs and expectations of your system's end-users. Determine whether they value cutting-edge features or prioritize consistent performance. Engaging with your user base can provide crucial insights into their preferences, guiding your decision-making process. Ultimately, a reliable system that meets user needs often proves more successful than an innovative one that falls short.

When deciding between innovation and reliability, consider your end-users' needs and expectations. Do they prioritize cutting-edge features or a dependable system? Engaging with your user base to gain insights is crucial. Always use the product life cycle, user and stakeholder needs as key design and decision drivers. Understanding and aligning with user needs ensures that your decisions are well-based and focused on delivering maximum value. By considering user feedback and preferences, you create products that engage with your audience, fostering loyalty and satisfaction. Remember, a user-centric approach often leads to long-term success and a stronger market position.

No design de sistemas, as necessidades do usuário devem sempre estar no centro das decis?es. Independentemente das inova??es tecnológicas disponíveis, a principal preocupa??o deve ser se a solu??o atende de forma eficaz às demandas dos usuários. Sistemas bem-sucedidos s?o aqueles que resolvem problemas reais de maneira eficiente e intuitiva. A inova??o, embora importante, deve ser orientada por uma compreens?o profunda das necessidades e expectativas dos usuários. Priorizar as necessidades do usuário é essencial no design de sistemas, n?o apenas para garantir a usabilidade, mas também para assegurar que a solu??o entregue resultados concretos e significativos.

Customers will always rather have consistency and reliability over any new gee gaw feature that has been conjured up as an apparent "Value Add".

I agree. There is no conflict with innovation and reliability. Innovation always introduces uncertainty. It is part of the process. Statistically only 10% of innovative ideas become operational. Innovation must be submitted to intensive analysis and tests before entering in service.

I am working in a safety-relevant area. Not testing before launching it to the customer is not acceptable. This is especially true for innovate functions.

Always introduces innovative features as patches and integration features with rollback ability. Regress testing is always critical when finalizing the product delivery even when we are in a known domain as nothing is 100% reliable. Hence the test case should also cover the maximum amount of known issues from the previous project/experience/product. Extend testing time for new/innovative features should to minimise the impact on reliability as it plays a major role on deciding whether the customers stays or goes

there is no need to give up innovation, you need to raise the implementation budget and take a truly scientific approach to testing the product and evaluating the method of its implementation and testing in order to avoid deviations from the plan. Innovations are not always the cause of failed tests, so it is incorrect to associate the failure of innovations with test results

Too big a topic for simple posts but: 1. Testing will occur during development or in the field. Testing in the field usually leads to lower reputations. 2. I always make sure the testers are thinking like users and not like engineers. Engineers make lousy testers.

Either reliability and innovation pertain inevitable costs. Risks are required to be studied to reduce the consequences and increase the reliability, where the costs of this shall not be ignored and shall be effective at any milestone of the job. Innovation requires research, time and costs, result of innovation is increased efficiency, compliance to international regulatory norms while some will be cost imperative which may increase the product quality or quantity. In conclusion, reliability costs shall be always considered in the budget, while innovation requires tradeoff between compliance to timelines and the sought innovated feature, which may be taken as per the project's priorities.

Taking a microservice approach will be beneficial for modern products as it leaves a lot of room for adding innovative idea. It will not look like cost effective in short term, but it will be cost effective in long term when introducing new features. This will also make new releases faster and control issues effectively.

It's all a matter of needs and wants, if you need innovation to gain the competitive edge, make it so. Reliability is a given to a point dependant on your market. If it is the choice between a route to market and a total failure it will make it self obvious. If you have done you planning well and have good CM to manage the product the descion will be an easy one to make...as you will have to make it.

Au delà des gains habituels et en aéronautique en particulier, pour traiter ce point il ne faut pas oublier les co?ts de non qualité exportée ou les co?ts de traitement de la non qualité récurrente .

A análise de custos é uma etapa crucial no design de sistemas, especialmente quando se trata de equilibrar inova??o e confiabilidade. O desafio está em alocar recursos de maneira eficiente, garantindo que cada investimento agregue valor tangível ao projeto. Uma abordagem eficaz envolve avaliar n?o apenas os custos iniciais de desenvolvimento, mas também os custos de manuten??o, escalabilidade e possíveis riscos associados. é fundamental considerar o retorno sobre o investimento (ROI) e como cada decis?o impacta o or?amento e a viabilidade do projeto a longo prazo.

In machinery projects any decision has a long shot until a real feedback, so a verification ans validation approach is essential, then a digital twin approach and/or realtime monitoring may bring to risk assessment and promptly recovery action plan.

The points for consideration are there: weighing risks, scope, user needs, testing, cost analysis. Additional considerations could be a plan for future iterations during considerations for reliability and innovation. A modular design approach and a byte size incremental innovation could also be helpful.

It's all about risk and planning. First, any design should require testing and assessment before implementation. The design should be cost-effective in theory or address a safety issue to be approved. All of this should be planned from the beginning. As part of the assessment, it is essential to continuously evaluate and re-evaluate the product's reliability and safety. A product needs to comply with its function to be reliable. Any risk of failure should be evaluated with data collected since the testing phase to decide promptly on the best decision for our current situation. However, data collection is a continuous process that will be less frequent when the process is under control.

In the race between innovation and reliability, there is more to be considered for the future: obsolescence management, configuration management, availability, and so on. Here, saving the day may not mean saving tomorrow.

In looking at each system, you should know if you are on the bleeding edge of tech, you are probably a tech company, most companies depend on reliability and consistency. Most users want to be on their phones rather than have a visually stunning poor performance. You don't want to be so far out of sync you aren't supported (but even that's going away with cloud) but for most you sit just behind the starting line on cloud based solutions today. Where you do worry is how much technical debt you take on with each project and how to mitigate it. Do watch what you customize and why because I promise you, that's where your biggest pain points are. Keep to the software, use reporting to change the definitions.