> work together on projects of their choosing for 90 days, before regrouping for their next project.
how do you provide long-term value (never mind complete a new drug?) if everything changes every 90 days?
You don't.
Once you get to the point where a single financial quarter is in the same order-of-magnitude ballpark as the number of remaining quarters that could be sustained without re-capitalization, it kind of makes sense to operate everything with the same 90-day degree of granularity.
It might help to better track the ratio of expected remaining quarters to actual remaining quarters if it really gets down to it.
Of course, the shorter-term your outlook, the more likelihood that the most value-added embellishments will suffer the most, and in an inflationary environment when costs are rising unbearably, the long-term bottom line can have more downward pressure for this reason than the numerical inflation rate is imposing.
Eventually you get to the point where anything that takes more than 5 minutes just isn't going to get accomplished by anyone on any team, and there's nothing anybody can do about it.
Remember what it was like at GM when only the very top executives knew the company was heading straight for bankruptcy without some kind of a bailout?
There was no more reason to continue to build cars as well as they were before.
Everything on the vehicle doesn't have to last as long as a 5-year warranty if the company is not going to be around in 5 years anyway.
In product warranties, there is usually a chain of liability. It is not just the producer.
You don't. My employer switched to this type of project structure 16 months ago and so far all "projects" have been useless short sighted solo work.
The only benefit I've seen is it's a great for anyone who wants to coast until retirement. For example my current "project" is to stand up our production Kafka cluster. I provisioned and configured the servers within a day and now I'm sitting around twiddling my thumbs for the next 89 days.