It’s against this backdrop that online education platforms are expected to grow from a $4 billion industry today to a hefty $21 billion market by 2023. 

What's the size now? Any takers?

Corollary: some/many developers spend 10 minutes om WHAT (their own internal model,of reality) and an eternity on HOW.
In the legendary words of Luigi Ballabio, I now duck for cover!

It might be a side effect of Agile. Most of the things these days can be done without planning or minimum planning. I can jump on the bicycle, take some cash, mobile, minimum camping gear and cross EU from East to West with a plan only for the next 2 ours. GPS navigation, weather forecast will sort most of my issues along the way. I worked in Ultra Agile (I would call them Fragile) teams where Planning was almost offensive word (yes, it can go that bad). 

We need to plan less and less - thanks to technology. Yes, we can build software without significant planning in 80% of cases. And get rewarded. Nice! Comfortable! But then, as usual, a new requirement comes, and better you don't even open development environment for the next 24-72 hours and whiteboard instead. This is not comfortable (for inexperienced) with Agile around. You won't get reward in the next 72 hours. That's even less comfortable.... OK, try usual, Fragile, approach. Fail. Push. Fail. Push, get something. Push more, get a monster. Release... This is what happens right now in many places on Earth. 

Just out of interest, how many more times Machine Learning words were used against Deep Learning  among people in media and discussions? Psychologically first pair is way more comfortable than latter. Hopefully anthropologists will answer or already answered. 

I used to be a requirements analyst for a good while and I found Inquiry-based .. to be so invaluable for high-risk (all are ) fixed-price projects

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... s_Analysis

Q: what is, what kinds of, who, when, what-if,  how-to, relationship, follow-on etc. and you can interleave them. It's in my 2004 book Domain Architectures (Wiley)

Another trap people fall in is that they think above questions should be worked out only on a large scale. With the time and experience one will realise that they help a lot in a small scale too. Answers to the above question will help a lot in OOP, SOLID and eventually Parallel. 

I used to be a requirements analyst for a good while and I found Inquiry-based .. to be so invaluable for high-risk (all are ) fixed-price projects

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... s_Analysis

Q: what is, what kinds of, who, when, what-if,  how-to, relationship, follow-on etc. and you can interleave them. It's in my 2004 book Domain Architectures (Wiley)

Another trap people fall in is that they think above questions should be worked out only on a large scale. With the time and experience one will realise that they help a lot in a small scale too. Answers to the above question will help a lot in OOP, SOLID and eventually Parallel. 

People are very ambitious and like to please. Developers tends to estimate only the 'the intersting parts of a project. i.e. the keyboard input part. Pre and postprocessing parts get short shrift as it is so 'boring'. I multiply their cost estimate by 3 and add 20% for slippage. (e.g. what happened with 1st generation OO projects .. people were so enthusiastic until reality kicked in).

For risky projects, persuade client to do  a POC (proof-of-concept) especially if fixed price.

For risky projects, persuade client to do  a POC (proof-of-concept) especially if fixed price.

Agree, also seasoning it with Agile and Minimum Viable Product these days might help to get a green light. 

For risky projects, persuade client to do  a POC (proof-of-concept) especially if fixed price.

Agree, also seasoning it with Agile and Minimum Viable Product these days might help to get a green light. 

I'm pre-Agile generation. What's Minimum Viable Product == applied common sense? 
The risk of POC is for client, especially if requirements are fuzzy.

example: a traffic routing system in a busy city: the developers had GUIs ready, the UML Case tool was ported from Unix to Windows and two months before delivery they started on the routing algorithms.

There's

1. get it work
then
2. get it right
then and only then
3. get it optimised (aka gold plating)

Art robbers start with 1 .. they steal the painting, not the frame.

I'm pre-Agile generation. What's Minimum Viable Product == applied common sense? 

In the context of App Development - it's a complete product with minim functionality, so users could start play around with it and give early feedback. 

In the context of Engineering - it's complete algorithms that could be put under quality and performance tests, so engineers could evaluate it and implement other approaches if numbers are not satisfying. Especially useful in case of parallel implementation. One approach can hit memory, another CPU. You never know until you try and measure. 

The product grows in a spiral model, instead of waterfall. System's evolution can respond to the new demands at a very early stage. At a new cycle you'll be not too far from where you were yesterday. It's especially works well at the inception of the project. 

George Orwell was good at prediction

https://www.insider.com/george-orwell-1 ... rue-2019-5

Microsoft Japan’s 4-day workweek experiment sees productivity jump 40%

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/04/microsoft-japan-4-day-work-week-experiment-sees-productivity-jump-40percent.html

Check the term "Hawthorne effect". Not that I wouldn't mind an extra day off...

Check the term "Hawthorne effect". Not that I wouldn't mind an extra day off...

Is it like Taylor's Time and Motion? 
I doubt Microsoft works like that, software is more subtle..

Check the term "Hawthorne effect". Not that I wouldn't mind an extra day off...

I’m claiming the Wilmott Effect: Attaching names or titles, labeling as effects, principles, etc., obvious phenomena subcontracts thinking and devalues serious research. Particularly prevalent in social sciences, finance and economics.