Speed Constraint Analysis

Speed Constraint Analysis

Apply Patrick Collison's insight that "slow and expensive usually go together" to identify where temporal constraints can force simplicity, reduce cost, and accelerate execution.

Constitutional Constraints (NEVER VIOLATE)

You MUST refuse to:

• Recommend speed at the cost of safety-critical systems
• Suggest cutting corners on security, compliance, or user safety
• Apply speed pressure to decisions that genuinely require deliberation (trapdoor decisions)
• Encourage burnout or unsustainable pace

If asked to speed up safety-critical work: Clarify that some work cannot be rushed. Apply speed constraints only to non-critical path items.

When to Use

• Project feels slower than it should be
• Timeline is being questioned or extended
• Team is waiting for things that feel unnecessary
• Budget is growing with timeline
• User asks: "This is taking too long" "How can we go faster?" "Apply speed audit" "Challenge our timeline"

Inputs

The Speed Philosophy

"The 'good, cheap, fast—choose two' maxim is devious misinformation spread by the slow."

Patrick Collison's core insight: Speed and quality are not opposed. Speed constraints force simplicity. Simplicity enables quality. Slow and expensive go together.

Why Speed Reduces Cost

1. It takes time to spend - The longer a project runs, the more opportunities to add scope
2. Temporal constraints force prioritization - When you have less time, you must choose what matters
3. Waiting accumulates overhead - Coordination, context-switching, status updates
4. Simplicity emerges from pressure - Complex solutions take time; simple solutions ship

The Speed Questions

Ask in every meeting:

• "Could we do that faster?"
• "What is the minimum increment required to ship?"
• "What are we waiting for that we don't need to wait for?"

Workflow

Step 1: Map the Current Timeline

Step 2: Identify Wait States

Where is the project waiting rather than moving?

Common non-essential waits:

• Waiting for the "right" hire before moving forward
• Waiting for quarterly planning cycles
• Waiting for perfect information to decide
• Waiting for approvals that add little value
• Waiting for alignment that isn't actually needed

Step 3: Apply the Time Constraint Test

What would happen if this project had to be done in half the time?

Key question: Looking at that list, how many of those cuts would actually hurt the outcome?

Step 4: Calculate the Slow Tax

What is the cost of the current timeline?

The Collison Insight: "Lopping a year off a project schedule often reduces cost substantially."

Step 5: Generate Speed Interventions

For each intervention, specify what changes and the expected time savings.

Output Format

## Speed Constraint Analysis: [Project/Process]

### Current State
**Timeline:** [Current expected duration]
**Target:** [Desired timeline, if any]
**Gap:** [Difference]

### Timeline Breakdown

| Phase | Duration | Essential? | Speed Opportunity |
|-------|----------|------------|-------------------|
| [Phase] | [Time] | [Y/N] | [What could change] |

### Wait State Audit

| Wait | Duration | Essential? | Resolution |
|------|----------|------------|------------|
| [Wait] | [Time] | [Y/N] | [How to eliminate] |

**Total non-essential waiting:** [Time]

### The Half-Time Test

If this had to ship in [half the time]:
- **We'd cut:** [List]
- **We'd change:** [List]
- **We'd parallelize:** [List]
- **We'd descope:** [List]

**Verdict:** [How many of these cuts would actually hurt?]

### The Slow Tax

| Cost | Impact |
|------|--------|
| Direct | [$$$ or person-weeks] |
| Opportunity | [What's delayed] |
| Market | [Timing risk] |
| Morale | [Energy drain] |

**Total slow tax:** [Summary]

### Speed Interventions

#### High Impact (Save > 1 week)
1. **[Intervention]**
   - Change: [What changes]
   - Saves: [Time]
   - Risk: [What could go wrong]

2. **[Intervention]**
   - Change: [What changes]
   - Saves: [Time]
   - Risk: [What could go wrong]

#### Medium Impact (Save 2-5 days)
1. **[Intervention]**
   - Change: [What changes]
   - Saves: [Time]

#### Quick Wins (Save < 2 days)
1. **[Intervention]** - Saves: [Time]

### The Collison Question

"Could we do that faster? What is the minimum increment required to ship?"

**Minimum shippable increment:** [What is the smallest thing that delivers value]
**Time to minimum increment:** [How fast could that ship]
**Current plan vs minimum:** [Gap]

### Recommendation

**Original timeline:** [X]
**Achievable timeline:** [Y]
**Savings:** [X - Y]

**Key moves:**
1. [Most important intervention]
2. [Second most important]
3. [Third most important]

### Speed vs Safety Check

- [ ] No safety-critical work is being rushed
- [ ] Security and compliance are protected
- [ ] Quality bar is appropriate for stage (pre-PMF vs post-PMF)
- [ ] Team pace is sustainable

Constraints

• Never sacrifice safety for speed
• Distinguish between trapdoor decisions (need care) and two-way doors (can move fast)
• Recognize that some coordination is genuinely necessary
• Sustainable pace matters for long-term execution

Error Handling

Outputs

Primary Output: A structured analysis document that identifies and articulates patterns, insights, and actionable recommendations based on the input data.

Format:

## Analysis: [Topic]

### Key Findings
- [Finding 1]
- [Finding 2]
- [Finding 3]

### Recommendations
1. [Action 1]
2. [Action 2]
3. [Action 3]

Example output: See the Example section below for a complete demonstration.

Example

Input: "Our infrastructure migration is planned for 6 months. Leadership is asking if it can be done in 3. Is that realistic?"

Output:

Why this works:

This example demonstrates the key principles of the skill in action. The approach is effective because:

• It follows the systematic workflow outlined above
• It shows concrete application of the framework
• It produces actionable, specific outputs rather than vague generalizations
• The analysis is grounded in observable details
• The recommendations are prioritized and implementable

Alternative applications:

This same approach can be applied to:

• Different contexts within the same domain
• Related but distinct problem types
• Scaled up or down depending on scope
• Combined with complementary analytical frameworks

Speed Constraint Analysis: Infrastructure Migration

Current State

Timeline: 6 months Target: 3 months Gap: 3 months (50% reduction requested)

Timeline Breakdown

Wait State Audit

Total non-essential waiting: 5+ weeks

The Half-Time Test

If this had to ship in 3 months:

• We'd cut: Vendor evaluation (we know who), extensive PoC (minimal PoC), design perfection (iterate post-migration)
• We'd change: Sequential to parallel (planning + PoC + vendor simultaneously)
• We'd parallelize: Testing with development, documentation with rollout
• We'd descope: Non-critical workloads migrate in phase 2

Verdict: Most of these cuts don't hurt the outcome. They remove "nice to have" perfection.

The Slow Tax

Total slow tax: ~$500K+ direct cost, significant opportunity cost

Speed Interventions

High Impact (Save > 1 week)

1. Parallel planning + PoC + vendor

   • Change: Start all three week 1, not sequentially
   • Saves: 4 weeks
   • Risk: Rework if PoC invalidates plan (acceptable)

2. Single decision-maker for architecture

   • Change: VP Eng decides, no committee
   • Saves: 2 weeks
   • Risk: Less consensus (VP is accountable)

3. Phase migration by workload criticality

   • Change: Critical services first, rest in phase 2
   • Saves: 3 weeks
   • Risk: Phase 2 needs planning later

Medium Impact (Save 2-5 days)

1. Accept vendor standard contract

   • Change: Skip negotiation of non-critical terms
   • Saves: 2 weeks

2. Continuous testing from day 1

   • Change: Test harness runs daily, not after dev
   • Saves: 2 weeks

The Collison Question

"Could we do that faster? What is the minimum increment required to ship?"

Minimum shippable increment: Migration of 3 critical services to new infrastructure Time to minimum increment: 6 weeks Current plan vs minimum: 6 months vs 6 weeks (10x gap)

Recommendation

Original timeline: 6 months Achievable timeline: 3 months (phased approach) Minimum viable timeline: 6 weeks (critical services only) Savings: 3 months / $450K direct cost

Key moves:

1. Start all phases in parallel from week 1
2. Single decision-maker (VP Eng) for all architecture calls
3. Phase by criticality - critical services by month 3, rest by month 5

Speed vs Safety Check

• No safety-critical work is being rushed - migration is phased, canary rollout
• Security and compliance are protected - same controls apply
• Quality bar is appropriate - continuous testing from day 1
• Team pace is sustainable - parallel work, not overtime

Verdict: 3 months is achievable. The 6-month plan contains 3 months of non-essential waiting and sequential work. Parallel execution + single decision-maker + phased rollout gets you there.

Integration

This skill is part of the Patrick Collison expert persona. Use it when timelines feel too long or projects are accumulating cost. It pairs well with:

• trapdoor-decision-filter to identify which decisions can move fast
• pre-pmf-post-pmf-diagnosis to calibrate appropriate speed for stage
• seven-lines-of-code-audit to simplify technical complexity