4,422 karma · joined April 22, 2008
This is related to last week's discussion of scrum and its weaknesses, http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4510943
- - Charles Beard
>Yeah, if it were up to me, 10% of our time would be spent on training-- teaching, learning, research, etc. But the higher-ups will often veto that, because on paper, it looks like it takes them 10% longer to complete their projects. Never mind that well-trained people work better and faster-- that's difficult to measure.
Actually, the effects of training are very easy to measure, compared to most of the other stuff involved in management; the problem is that very few are willing to put in the time needed up-front before you can get anything to measure.
ADDED: Also the Linux Hater's Blog is still going if only intermittently, http://linuxhaters.blogspot.com/
Added: Now it's made the top post.
ADDED: Conversely, with small teams, the overhead of more formal methods doesn't scale down; that is where less structured methods like scrum are most efficient.
That kind of thing can only happen when opening a new field, and even then it isn't a sure thing. And it helps to have a faddish consumer product, like a lot of the big startup successes of the past decade, though there is no real evidence yet of their long term success (Twitter, Facebook, Airbnb, and so on).
Anyone that is going to compete against established companies, in a difficult, technical field like chip design, is going to face a slow, grueling climb, if they manage to climb at all.
- - Andrew S. Tanenbaum
I wonder if he still thinks saying that was a good idea.
My initial system is similar to his, but I found transcribing everything into computer better, mainly because of easier searching, and because it made sharing information that applied to multiple projects easier.
- - Jerry E Pournelle
Any large enough organization tends towards bureaucracy, and the tendency is even stronger on the Web, where direct person-to-person interaction is more limited. And the evolution to "iron law" conditions tends to be faster there also, once the bureaucratic (rule-following and rule-enforcing) mindset is formed. Wikipedia, Google, and Amazon are other examples, they have all been getting worse to use over the last few years. Web-based organizations probably need to remain smaller than similar real-world organizations, if they want to avoid the effect.
In fact, by some unofficial counts, like this one http://www.opednews.com/articles/Real-Unemployment-at-23--by... , total unemployment may be as high as 23% right now. Nor is this the only one, this sight is pretty lefty, two recent essays on the conservative site VDare.com have given similar estimates (22%) for current total unemployment.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-roberts/books-were-the-fi...
"You can have anything you want: No dream is too big to achieve. But you can't have everything you want: We live in a finite world for a finite period of time, but with infinite imagination."
The reason the internet won't actually get as bad as TV is the lack of approvals, and relatively low cost even for good quality production. The problem is that it gets harder to find amongst all the bleep. Search engines help, but I have found some useful sites, by following links, that apparently aren't indexed by Google or DuckDuckGo.
Just substitute "the Web" for "Google"; the Web is becoming television!!