|
|
|
|
|
|
by ratww
1581 days ago
|
|
|
> a lot like coordinational/planning micromanagement, where the manglement had final say on how much effort needed to be expended where instead of allowing engineering to own the resource allocation process Yep, that's a fair assessment! The 1000+ one was an ERP for mid-large businesses. They had 10 or so flagship products (all acquired) and wanted to consolidate it all into a single one. The failure was more on trying to join the 10 teams together (and including lots of field-only implementation consultants in the bunch), rather than picking a solid foundation that they already owned and handpicking what needed. The 500+ was an online marketplace. They had that many people because that was a condition imposed by investors. People ended up owning parts of a screen, so something that was a "two-man in a sprint" ended up being a whole team. It was demoralising but I still like the company. I don't think it's impossible to notice, but it's hard... you can ask during interviews about numbers of employees, what each one does, ask for examples of what each team does on a daily basis. Honestly 100, 500, 1000 people for a company is not really a lot, but 100, 500, 1000 for a single project is definitely a red flag for me now, and anyone trying to pull the "but think of the scale!!!" card is a bullshit artist. |
|
|
> trying to join the 10 teams together
oh no
(insert https://webcomicname.com/ here)
> rather than picking a solid foundation that they already owned and handpicking what needed.
Mmmm.
I wonder if a close alternative (notwithstanding lack of context to optimally calibrate ideas off of) might have involved leaving all the engineers alone to compare notes for 6-12 months with the singular top-down goal of "decide what components and teams do what best." That could be interesting... but it leans very heavily on preexisting competence, initiative and proactivity (not to mention conflict resolution >:D), and is probably a bit spherical-cow...
> The 500+ was an online marketplace. They had that many people because that was a condition imposed by investors.
*Constructs getaway vehicle in spare time* AAAAAaaaaaa
Sad engineering face :<
> I don't think it's impossible to notice, but it's hard... you can ask during interviews about numbers of employees, what each one does, ask for examples of what each team does on a daily basis.
Noted. Thanks.
> Honestly 100, 500, 1000 people for a company is not really a lot, but 100, 500, 1000 for a single project is definitely a red flag for me now, and anyone trying to pull the "but think of the scale!!!" card is a bullshit artist.
That makes a lot of sense, and also filed away.
Also, I recently read this which resonates quite strongly with the economy-of-efficiency scale problem (which I totally agree with): https://rachelbythebay.com/w/2022/01/26/swcbbs/, and the update, https://rachelbythebay.com/w/2022/01/27/scale/