I'm concerned about the consistency of the claims.

from Nodal Point of Thought 2021 Unexplored Jr. I’m concerned about the consistency of the claims.

nishio: rejection is not a denial of the project. The basic premise is that if you want to continue, you can, and if you no longer want to continue, you can stop. I tend to ask the question of customer value, but I’m not sure if I should say “I don’t care about customer value, I’m making this because I want to make it! I make things because I want to make them!” It is also OK to say “Customer = me” and “value = doing what I want to do”.

nishio: It is not good if “asking the customer value question” and “rejection notice” are combined to create a misunderstanding that “we should only do what has clear customer value”. It is necessary to strongly reiterate that “rejection is not a denial of the project”.

nishio: Maybe there is a type of attribute in the world that says “either is OK, but neither is not” and “I am the customer” is OK, but “If you want to claim “Method X will make customer Z If you claim “I will make customer Z happy with method X”, you should “test the hypothesis that customer Z will be happy with method X”. I see, so this is integrity of the claim. Now I know why I’m so obsessed with it.

nishio: So there’s an implicit “consistency in claims is a good thing”, from which the “if you assume a customer other than yourself and customer value is not considered. I guess that’s where the “tweak” behavior comes from.

---

This page is auto-translated from /nishio/主張の整合性が気になる using DeepL. If you looks something interesting but the auto-translated English is not good enough to understand it, feel free to let me know at @nishio_en. I’m very happy to spread my thought to non-Japanese readers.