3 ms·

Attention is not easily managed labor. This becomes extra complex in cultural environments - industrial/work - which do not strive to promote commonality of at

Attention is not easily managed labor. This becomes extra complex in cultural environments - industrial/work - which do not strive to promote commonality of attention among the group members, such that it fosters communication, and ultimately .. production. This is clearly visible in the HR requirements practices. Companies which have a confidence in their ability to manage the on-boarders' attention, tend to interview for communication rather than experience - those who haven't made the investment in attention-management techniques, such as great training, technical on-boarding routine, etc., tend to focus on experience over sociability. >Brookes' law I've found, with 30 years of experience in software development from both the trenches to management and back, that there is an aspect of this law which goes ignored - "Adding manpower to a late software project makes it later, but adding documentation to a late software project makes it easier to add manpower.." The better you document things so that strangers can understand them, the easier time you have on boarding strangers and getting them up to speed. This is a cultural mechanic, and alas is usually in the wrong persons' hands - i.e. HR, upper managements, etc. Technical people need to get this right for the true fire to burn ..

cies 7y ago
> "Adding manpower to a late software project makes it later, but adding documentation to a late software project makes it easier to add manpower.." I think this is shared by all big engineering works. > This is a cultural mechanic I'd call this "structural" instead of "cultural", where I am of the opinion that culture is implicit and structure is explicit in nature.
- fit2rule 7y ago
  Interesting, I would reverse those terms entirely: culture is explicit (it has to be continually re-told in order to persist) whereas structure is a consequence of the natural form of life, imposed upon the laws of the physical universe. I wonder how we came to such abject differences?
  - cies 7y ago
    Indeed interesting. Someone told me long time ago: if you dont provide structure at the job, people will find a shared method of working but it will be culture then (harder to change, mostly implicit). This stayed with me. I think I recently read a similar statement again in some text.

cies 7y ago

> "Adding manpower to a late software project makes it later, but adding documentation to a late software project makes it easier to add manpower.." I think this is shared by all big engineering works. > This is a cultural mechanic I'd call this "structural" instead of "cultural", where I am of the opinion that culture is implicit and structure is explicit in nature.

fit2rule 7y ago
Interesting, I would reverse those terms entirely: culture is explicit (it has to be continually re-told in order to persist) whereas structure is a consequence of the natural form of life, imposed upon the laws of the physical universe. I wonder how we came to such abject differences?
- cies 7y ago
  Indeed interesting. Someone told me long time ago: if you dont provide structure at the job, people will find a shared method of working but it will be culture then (harder to change, mostly implicit). This stayed with me. I think I recently read a similar statement again in some text.