One of the main points of this essay is that you have a certain budget for innovation, exemplified in a fixed token count, you spend on your tech stack. Once you are out of tokens, you end up injecting too much risk into the project, and it is likely to fail.
I think this view has to be generalized. Your budget isn't simply affecting the tech of the system, but it also affects the whole: business case, decision loop, company maturity, etc. If the business case is a true moonshot vision of epic proportions, you have to think about what tech stack can support it. In some cases, you can be fairly conservative in your tech choices. That's probably a good idea if the business case is pretty wild and ambitious since it will ground the project nicely.
However, in many cases things go hand in hand. There's often some important complex part of the business case which require complexity in the tech stack. Say, for the sake of the current spotlighted tech, the central component need a large language model. Then, that LLM is going to eat into your development effort budget quite a lot. You should probably focus on getting the core part of the system running quickly, and support it by conservative tools.
The flip side is a quite straightforward business case. Then, the competitive edge needs to come from better application of the tech, and that will often require more innovative approaches.
In summary: you need to think about where the innovation is in the project, and modify the tech choices accordingly.
I think this view has to be generalized. Your budget isn't simply affecting the tech of the system, but it also affects the whole: business case, decision loop, company maturity, etc. If the business case is a true moonshot vision of epic proportions, you have to think about what tech stack can support it. In some cases, you can be fairly conservative in your tech choices. That's probably a good idea if the business case is pretty wild and ambitious since it will ground the project nicely.
However, in many cases things go hand in hand. There's often some important complex part of the business case which require complexity in the tech stack. Say, for the sake of the current spotlighted tech, the central component need a large language model. Then, that LLM is going to eat into your development effort budget quite a lot. You should probably focus on getting the core part of the system running quickly, and support it by conservative tools.
The flip side is a quite straightforward business case. Then, the competitive edge needs to come from better application of the tech, and that will often require more innovative approaches.
In summary: you need to think about where the innovation is in the project, and modify the tech choices accordingly.