6 ms·

Deadlines are a must IMHO to scale anything, they should be negotiated and adjustable (either by moving the deadline, taking on debt, or cutting scope), but are

Deadlines are a must IMHO to scale anything, they should be negotiated and adjustable (either by moving the deadline, taking on debt, or cutting scope), but are necessary. Why? because theres more to a buisness then enginnering (and product). Sales, marketing, investor's, and other entities also deal with complex issues thwt require them to reliably understand the priority and timeline for products. I've seen teams that follow "it's done when its done" and teams who work as a unit to hit on or very near deadlines. The latter is usually 2-4x+ more efficient and the former I have only seen work when the buisness was in a spot that it could go at least 6months without and product/enginnering output. I would flee from any startup that took the former approach.

aidenn0 8y ago
Indeed. I think TFA is opposed to non-negotiable externally imposed deadlines, which is not really news.
- duncanriach 8y ago
  I agree. But sometimes dates for delivery of something do need to be set. That approach should be very selectively used, with an understanding that it's not a demand that X is done by Y, but that something will be shipped on Y. Then, the question is how do we most effectively motivate people to make X as amazing as possible? On one project where I defined what X was (a unit on a chip), I delivered it by Y with all the most important features and zero bugs. Later, my manager (who I almost never interacted with) revealed that my productivity was equivalent to 32 engineers in a competing company.
  - duncanriach 8y ago
    Correction: there was one small bug that was hard to avoid but relatively easy to fix. And in terms of interaction with my manager: I did send him a weekly report on what I had done each week. But he trusted me too much, or was way too busy, to interfere.
  - lawnchair_larry 8y ago
    I think that only tells us about you, not about most people. Most people do not find the path to that outcome. Also, do you think your productivity was equivalent to 32 engineers? Regardless of what your manager said.
    - duncanriach 8y ago
      I always think I'm doing a shit job and not getting anywhere near enough done. However, I always seem to get rated as a top contributor (which surprises me). In this example, my manager told me that he had obtained information that a team of sixteen people had accomplished the same work as I had in twice the time. I believed him, even though it seemed insane, particularly given that I felt like I was doing a crap job. I don't see why he would lie to me about that. Another example like this (from later) was when I designed a context-switchable HD MPEG-2 core with two other people. We had the CEO/CTO of a start-up come in to pitch their supposedly equivalent core to us. They had a company of dozens of people who had all been working on the project for a couple of years. We had been working on our project for six months and we were much further ahead in development than them. It seems to me that the performance and quality bar is just really low in general. Execution is way lower than it could be. I can only imagine that it's a motivation problem.
      - lawnchair_larry 8y ago
        I didn’t think he was lying, just wondering what your own assessment would be. I think you’re right that motivation has a lot to do with it, but there are other factors too. Being 32x seems like too large a gap to be explained by motivation alone, unless the situation over there was extremely dire. We have to entertain the possibility that you’re also much better than they are. Attribution to motivation alone makes it sound like your mental model is based on the idea that intelligence and aptitude is equivalent in everbody. I’ve always said to younger folks new to the workforce that the way to get above average performance reviews is to simply give a shit. That alone seems to put any minimally competent person ahead of half the competition. And to what extent is the ability to maintain focus and motivation a talent on its own? Edit: I just want to say, I found the article extremely enjoyable. I am a little bit surprised by some of the feedback in HN comments. I’ll be blunt, you sound like you are bragging and have an elevated sense of your own worth. I do not think that is actually the case, but your writing (or maybe just your accomplishments) seem to trigger that heuristic. In my estimation, you seem to just be presenting facts and laying it all out, and I’m not sure how to do that when those facts happen to be flattering. As a clinical psychologist, maybe you have insight into why someone perceived as bragging gets downvoted. Since you expressed an interest in writing and motivating people, you might want to think about how to present that information without it distracting the reader by triggering their insecurities (if in fact that is happening). I generally struggle with that as well - although not on this particular issue, because I do not really have any great accomplishments to brag about ;) Although I like the article, my biggest issue with it is that I would like for it to be true, but I am unconvinced that it’s a recipe for success with most people. I’m not sure how many people you have managed, but have you really not seen anyone’s performance drop without deadlines? You’re getting shit for going off topic, but I’m glad you did, because I would not have clicked on an article about narcissism.
quickthrower2 8y ago
> I've seen teams that follow "it's done when its done" and teams who work as a unit to hit on or very near deadlines. There is room between these 2 extremes. A team that follows KPIs or some kind of agile process, for example.

aidenn0 8y ago

Indeed. I think TFA is opposed to non-negotiable externally imposed deadlines, which is not really news.

duncanriach 8y ago
I agree. But sometimes dates for delivery of something do need to be set. That approach should be very selectively used, with an understanding that it's not a demand that X is done by Y, but that something will be shipped on Y. Then, the question is how do we most effectively motivate people to make X as amazing as possible? On one project where I defined what X was (a unit on a chip), I delivered it by Y with all the most important features and zero bugs. Later, my manager (who I almost never interacted with) revealed that my productivity was equivalent to 32 engineers in a competing company.
- duncanriach 8y ago
  Correction: there was one small bug that was hard to avoid but relatively easy to fix. And in terms of interaction with my manager: I did send him a weekly report on what I had done each week. But he trusted me too much, or was way too busy, to interfere.
- lawnchair_larry 8y ago
  I think that only tells us about you, not about most people. Most people do not find the path to that outcome. Also, do you think your productivity was equivalent to 32 engineers? Regardless of what your manager said.
  - duncanriach 8y ago
    I always think I'm doing a shit job and not getting anywhere near enough done. However, I always seem to get rated as a top contributor (which surprises me). In this example, my manager told me that he had obtained information that a team of sixteen people had accomplished the same work as I had in twice the time. I believed him, even though it seemed insane, particularly given that I felt like I was doing a crap job. I don't see why he would lie to me about that. Another example like this (from later) was when I designed a context-switchable HD MPEG-2 core with two other people. We had the CEO/CTO of a start-up come in to pitch their supposedly equivalent core to us. They had a company of dozens of people who had all been working on the project for a couple of years. We had been working on our project for six months and we were much further ahead in development than them. It seems to me that the performance and quality bar is just really low in general. Execution is way lower than it could be. I can only imagine that it's a motivation problem.
    - lawnchair_larry 8y ago
      I didn’t think he was lying, just wondering what your own assessment would be. I think you’re right that motivation has a lot to do with it, but there are other factors too. Being 32x seems like too large a gap to be explained by motivation alone, unless the situation over there was extremely dire. We have to entertain the possibility that you’re also much better than they are. Attribution to motivation alone makes it sound like your mental model is based on the idea that intelligence and aptitude is equivalent in everbody. I’ve always said to younger folks new to the workforce that the way to get above average performance reviews is to simply give a shit. That alone seems to put any minimally competent person ahead of half the competition. And to what extent is the ability to maintain focus and motivation a talent on its own? Edit: I just want to say, I found the article extremely enjoyable. I am a little bit surprised by some of the feedback in HN comments. I’ll be blunt, you sound like you are bragging and have an elevated sense of your own worth. I do not think that is actually the case, but your writing (or maybe just your accomplishments) seem to trigger that heuristic. In my estimation, you seem to just be presenting facts and laying it all out, and I’m not sure how to do that when those facts happen to be flattering. As a clinical psychologist, maybe you have insight into why someone perceived as bragging gets downvoted. Since you expressed an interest in writing and motivating people, you might want to think about how to present that information without it distracting the reader by triggering their insecurities (if in fact that is happening). I generally struggle with that as well - although not on this particular issue, because I do not really have any great accomplishments to brag about ;) Although I like the article, my biggest issue with it is that I would like for it to be true, but I am unconvinced that it’s a recipe for success with most people. I’m not sure how many people you have managed, but have you really not seen anyone’s performance drop without deadlines? You’re getting shit for going off topic, but I’m glad you did, because I would not have clicked on an article about narcissism.

quickthrower2 8y ago

> I've seen teams that follow "it's done when its done" and teams who work as a unit to hit on or very near deadlines. There is room between these 2 extremes. A team that follows KPIs or some kind of agile process, for example.