When we hear a suggestion about a process that inverts the normal process based on a governance framework - say Microeconomics of Software Development, we need to ask who benefits? How would that suggestion be tangibly beneficial to the recipient that is now inverted?
Estimates for example are for the business, why would the business no longer what an estimate of cost, schedule, or technical performance of the provided capabilities?
In the world of spending money to produce value, the one that benefits, should be, must be, the one paying for that value and therefore have a compelling interest in the information needed to make decisions about how the money is spent.
When that relationship between paying and benefit is inverted, then the path to Qui Bono is inverted as well.
In the end follow the money must be the basis of assessing the applicability of any suggestion. If it is suggested that decision making can be done in the absence of estimating the impacts of those decisions, who benefits. If it's not those paying for the value, then Qui Bono is not longer applicable.
