Post date: Oct 24, 2014 2:19:55 PM
Well, I sent my second chapter back out this week. It's good to have it off the table for a week or two at least.
Yesterday I may have finally stumbled onto what causes these two tradeoff curves to look different:
By look different, I really mean they have 1) a different % maximum cost, 2) different % minimum impact, and 3) initial steepness. The hypothesis is that development areas with "smaller" least-cost layouts will be more constrained and thus will have 1) a higher % maximum cost (the logic there is not straightforward), 2) a higher % minimum impact, and 3) a larger initial steepness. Today I'll be exploring that a bit more. One possible implication or lesson from such a finding would indicate that the additional amount you're willing to spend on infrastructure shouldnt be based on the bottom-line cost of development (e.g. extra 50%), but should be an absolute amount, like an additional $1 million.