I have heard stories of how Microsoft would often commit several teams to build a product to the same spec: the team that got something market-ready first was handsomely rewarded...
This is how large companies should run projects. Bureaucracies often suck because they have a captive audience -- because they have no competition. Development teams can suck for exactly the same reasons.
In comparison to the potential impact of bad software in a large company, the cost of 1 or 2 extra development teams is chump change. I remember being in line at the airport to pick up a rental car, thinking, "The software this rental car company uses is clearly very bad. They won't be in business for much longer." I noticed a few years ago, that they were bought. Actually, I just looked it up and they were delisted in 2002.
As a counterpoint, there are innumerable software projects that would better our world and create wealth, but only a limited number of developers. Assigning two teams to do nearly the same thing is a waste.
Yes, but those are very different contexts -- mine was the big corporation with tons of cash on hand, with in-house development projects that could facilitate activities generating 100's of millions of billions of dollars. Going the extra mile to ensure the organization has access to the best of several options has a definite payoff.
This is how large companies should run projects. Bureaucracies often suck because they have a captive audience -- because they have no competition. Development teams can suck for exactly the same reasons.
In comparison to the potential impact of bad software in a large company, the cost of 1 or 2 extra development teams is chump change. I remember being in line at the airport to pick up a rental car, thinking, "The software this rental car company uses is clearly very bad. They won't be in business for much longer." I noticed a few years ago, that they were bought. Actually, I just looked it up and they were delisted in 2002.