Perfectionism vs Minimal Viable Product

In the military (and lots of other large organizations), the emphasis when building a product is on perfectionism. Because the military and large organizations face a myriad of challenges that result from being so large, the insistence on perfectionism is quality-control measure enacted to ensure excellence. This is a method of discipline. How else can an organization as large as the US Army ensure that all its Soldiers, weapons, and equipment are the same across the board?

Conversely, many people from the tech world and Silicon Valley have adopted the mantra of "Minimal Viable Product". The concept is to develop the product enough that it is testable, then launch it into the market. The reaction from the market to the product then steers its further development. Rather than hold onto the product, refining it until it's "just right", they toss it to the wolves as quickly as possible to see what works.

I've written before about the importance of cognition and how a good subordinate should try to create the least amount of strain necessary on their boss. But at what point do you stop holding onto a product (or report, or whatever) and give it to the boss for his/her feedback? You can't keep your precious report forever, refining it until the most perfect report no one will ever see. Nor can you toss your boss the first thing that you pull out of your ass and expect them to do all the reviewing for you.

In the case of building a new iteration or version of something where the standard already exist, learn towards perfectionism. But if you're wading into unknown waters where there are no pre-existing guides, go for the minimal viable product. The first demands high quality, because thing like it already exist as do expectations. The second requires feedback from everyone it affects, and so holding on to it delays receiving the feedback. The military (or GE or Toyota) isn't a Silicon Valley startup. Our brand comes with expectations of excellence.