4 ms·
> ... how many hours is required depends on the job. My point was that this way of thinking requires that the job is done in a certain timeframe, can't be spli
by Jedd 8y ago
> ... how many hours is required depends on the job.
My point was that this way of thinking requires that the job is done in a certain timeframe, can't be split between multiple people, etc.
It's probably some jobs have genuinely tight timeframes and a focus that can only be satisfactory obtained by engaging a single person to perform the role for short periods, and quite possible some number of jobs are much easier to manage with this thinking.
But given the time, resources, and scope triangle, it's hubris to assume three of those are fixed (and fixed at 40hr/week) in (m)any cases.
- pdonis 8y ago> given the time, resources, and scope triangle, it's hubris to assume three of those are fixed (and fixed at 40hr/week) in (m)any cases. No, it's not "hubris"; it's a common belief that, when looked at closely, might not be on the firm ground that many people seem to believe it is. But that doesn't justify a blanket statement that anyone who has this common belief is therefore guilty of hubris, or "should be deeply ashamed and possibly fired", which is how the post I originally responded to in this subthread put it. To me, it's you and the person who posted "deeply ashamed and possibly fired" who are guilty of hubris, for claiming that your own personal opinion about how all jobs should be organized outweighs everything else.
- Jedd 8y ago> ... for claiming that your own personal opinion about how all jobs should be organized outweighs everything else. Very much not what I was claiming.