I'm sure we've all seen threads where Rustaceans attempted to introduce Rust into their workplace and were shot down by management, "the grizzled software engineering veterans", or some other group.
As I gear up to go down this path at work, I wondered what leading thinking this software-quality conscious group was aware of that explores the full costs of what I call high- ("let's just get it working for the demo next week and we'll do it properly later") and low-technical debt development strategies.
In my experience, on a project of any decent size, front-loading risk by taking time to think broadly about the problem-space, and building quality in from the beginning using BDD/TDD, SOLID, embracing the expressiveness and relative freedom from stateful management of functional design, the high-quality approach releases (much) sooner, with much higher quality product.
I would appreciate pointers to blogs, articles, whitepapers, textbooks, etc. where this has been studied in some fashion (language of the study is unimportant). I think not having sufficient objective data to offset risk is a key reason some of these efforts have failed. I would love to realize a different outcome.
Ideally this information would be of value to others in the community as well, who are preparing similar efforts.