+1 One could argue that the litany of the questions are really a double-click on the essence: why, what, how. The three interrogatives ought to be the essence and distillation of any proposal or technical exposition.
Cheers Jules Sent from my iPhone Pardon the dumb thumb typos :) > On Aug 31, 2018, at 11:23 AM, Reynold Xin <r...@databricks.com> wrote: > > I helped craft the current SPIP template last year. I was recently > (re-)introduced to the Heilmeier Catechism, a set of questions DARPA > developed to evaluate proposals. The set of questions are: > > - What are you trying to do? Articulate your objectives using absolutely no > jargon. > - How is it done today, and what are the limits of current practice? > - What is new in your approach and why do you think it will be successful? > - Who cares? If you are successful, what difference will it make? > - What are the risks? > - How much will it cost? > - How long will it take? > - What are the mid-term and final “exams” to check for success? > > When I read the above list, it resonates really well because they are almost > always the same set of questions I ask myself and others before I decide > whether something is worth doing. In some ways, our SPIP template tries to > capture some of these (e.g. target persona), but are not as explicit and well > articulated. > > What do people think about replacing the current SPIP template with the > above? > > At a high level, I think the Heilmeier's Catechism emphasizes less about the > "how", and more the "why" and "what", which is what I'd argue SPIPs should be > about. The hows should be left in design docs for larger projects. > >
