2 ms·
I think it is well accepted that the larger the team/company, the greater the inefficiency, and one person is the most efficient is all. But that it's only prod
by quietbritishjim 7y ago
I think it is well accepted that the larger the team/company, the greater the inefficiency, and one person is the most efficient is all. But that it's only productivity per person, not the total amount produced. At the end of the day, some products (be they software, cars, or whatever) are complex enough that you need more than one person working on it. Even if that means moving from a signs person to a team of (say) four when your only wanted to double the amount of work done.
Still, I can see why returning to working on one-person projects where you get loads done would be really satisfying.
- treis 7y ago>But that it's only productivity per person, not the total amount produced. I'm not sure that's true because of differing expertise, bouncing ideas off someone, and help in getting unstuck. I'm guessing productivity peaks in a team of 3-5.
- lonelappde 7y agoDo you believe that Google or Microsoft would be more successful in aggregate as 10000 5person startups?
- treis 7y agoNo, because some projects are big enough where they can't be done by a 3 person team. If Google takes 100,000 developer hours to write, it would take a 3 person team 15+ years to create. But you can't take 50 developers working 2,000 hours and get it done in a year. You need something like 100 developers because they are half as efficient when working in that big of a group.
- brianmcc 7y agoIndeed - 200 people at 25% efficiency is still 50 people-units of contribution!