I think there is a difference in the concepts the author describes that comes from the fact that in the car manufacturing process, the goal is to produce a large number of cars. So someone can continue to linearly add value by producing more of the same thing. Your value is based on the sum of your total output.
To contrast with software: you reach a point where continuing to crank out more of the same doesn't actually create value. Your value is based on how much of the overall body of work you addressed. How big of a piece did you take out from the whole pie.
Personally, I'm still thinking over the additive/subtractive concept. It does seem like you could reframe a problem either way. Include a daily quota and the car example becomes subtractive.
> Your value is based on the sum of your total output.
If you make 2x car parts per unit of time than you usually do, you'll probably net the plant 1x the profit, because everyone else is working at 1x rate and your extra parts won't be used faster anyway. If you make 4x car parts per unit of time, you might net the company a $1M of loss, because the supply chain people won't be expecting the components to run out so fast and you'll stall the whole assembly line until the logistics can be sorted out.
It seems to me that "addictive"/"subtractive" split doesn't work for any job if you analyze it with the thoroughness the article otherwise applies to software development.
To contrast with software: you reach a point where continuing to crank out more of the same doesn't actually create value. Your value is based on how much of the overall body of work you addressed. How big of a piece did you take out from the whole pie.
Personally, I'm still thinking over the additive/subtractive concept. It does seem like you could reframe a problem either way. Include a daily quota and the car example becomes subtractive.