3 ms·
Competent internal teams can produce relatively simple solutions within a reasonable budget. However, it's hard to formalize and replicate such teams and/or tea
by tabtab 8y ago
Competent internal teams can produce relatively simple solutions within a reasonable budget. However, it's hard to formalize and replicate such teams and/or team habits. That's why the more formal specification & contract approach is often used instead: It's a BIT more predictable.
The first approach may get a grade from A to F, while the second ranges mostly from B- to D-. Predictable semi-crap is often easier to accept than something that might easily be an A, F, and all between. The first's probability curve is mostly flat from A to F, while the second peaks around C-, and thus it's somewhat more predictable, and that's why managers and bureaucrats often prefer it.
- forapurpose 8y ago> Competent internal teams can produce relatively simple solutions within a reasonable budget. However, it's hard to formalize and replicate such teams and/or team habits. Tangentially, that is exactly the military's central management challenge (per my limited understanding): Combat depends on replicating competence in internal teams, under extreme stress and extremely unpredictable situations, and with unpredictable turnover of key personnel, including management (they die). The U.S. military, for example, has to accomplish this across hundreds of thousands of personnel. Imagine you get a new manager the week before a major project is due, with lots of critical decisions to be made. Now imagine you get a new manager the day that person is supposed to lead you on an assault up an enemy hill, where a less-than-optimal decision might kill you.