You can debate which axes matter - you can debate the weighing and scaling of them - but you can't get away from the conclusion that "pushing all your risk boundaries at the same time equals failure". As a matter of fact, this is structurally identical to the famous "fast, good, cheap" triangle.
n.b., this analysis really starts hitting home in multi-team environments, say, over 50 engineers.
Another way to think about it is this: You get to change three axes in a product: new underlying technology, new product, or new process.
- Choosing one will allow you to progress with likely success.
- Choosing two opens yourself up to non-trivial risk.
- Choosing three means you will likely fail in this project.
There's a nifty talk by Steve McConnell about Software Engineering Judgement - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFcHX0Menno - that goes into this kind of analysis.
You can debate which axes matter - you can debate the weighing and scaling of them - but you can't get away from the conclusion that "pushing all your risk boundaries at the same time equals failure". As a matter of fact, this is structurally identical to the famous "fast, good, cheap" triangle.
n.b., this analysis really starts hitting home in multi-team environments, say, over 50 engineers.