I think it might be useful to step back a bit more and talk about possible worlds with and without the conversion, and assign probabilities to each. Once you have a list, and a consensus on probabilities (probably the hardest part) for each item, one can productively discuss how to make a decision. For example:
Convert those class-based React components into functional components
what are the odds of it taking 1 month? 2 months? 6 months?
what is the opportunity cost in terms of other projects?
what is the gain, in terms of simplifying maintenance, reducing effort/schedule for new features, etc.?
what are the losses, such as unstable API, (re)training people, (re)writing test cases, having critical bugs that will be introduced, etc.?
what are the unknowns and how would they impact the project?
This might ease the engineering/management/sales divide, assuming people are honest and earnest and you can get a buy-in to do something like that.
That sounds like a good exercise. However, that sort of exercise falls in the act consequentialist bucket, and I think that rule consequentialist stuff also deserves a seat at the table.
I think it might be useful to step back a bit more and talk about possible worlds with and without the conversion, and assign probabilities to each. Once you have a list, and a consensus on probabilities (probably the hardest part) for each item, one can productively discuss how to make a decision. For example:
Convert those class-based React components into functional components
what are the odds of it taking 1 month? 2 months? 6 months?
what is the opportunity cost in terms of other projects?
what is the gain, in terms of simplifying maintenance, reducing effort/schedule for new features, etc.?
what are the losses, such as unstable API, (re)training people, (re)writing test cases, having critical bugs that will be introduced, etc.?
what are the unknowns and how would they impact the project?
This might ease the engineering/management/sales divide, assuming people are honest and earnest and you can get a buy-in to do something like that.
That sounds like a good exercise. However, that sort of exercise falls in the act consequentialist bucket, and I think that rule consequentialist stuff also deserves a seat at the table.
Right, it’s way faster and probably accurate enough for many purposes.