Actually, I didn't ask Webster. I asked Bard who said the following: "The word "viable" has several meanings, but they all share the same basic idea of being able to exist or operate successfully. In biology, a viable organism is one that is capable of living and reproducing. In business, a viable product or service is one that is likely to be successful in the marketplace. In politics, a viable candidate is one who has a realistic chance of winning an election. Here are some of the synonyms for viable: feasible achievable doable possible practicable realizable workable Here are some examples of how the word "viable" can be used in a sentence: "The company's new product is not yet viable, but they are working on making it more marketable." "The candidate's campaign is not viable because they do not have enough funding." "The patient's condition is not viable, and they are expected to pass away soon." I hope this hel...

The software industry pays billions of dollars each year for delivering poor quality.  The average cost of fixing a bug or usability issue is around $100,000. The average cost of fixing a performance issue is around $1M.   These big round numbers might get our attention, but they aren’t very actionable.  The process for managing quality varies dramatically from company to company and product to product with good reason. An early stage startup will allow products to go to market with all kinds of issues in hopes of getting useful feedback.  The risk and resulting cost are relatively low.  They might be paying a premium for feedback with this approach, but it’s sometimes the easiest way to find out where the weak spots are and make adjustments.  Startups are (or should be) designed to pivot quickly.   Large companies certainly have a much lower tolerance for risk.  Consequences are magnified and taken very seriously.  Data loss, secur...