4 ms·
I did crunch time once. (In my case ironically I was the problem, it was fully unnecessary and no one but me involved). Thinks I learned from it: - It's very
by dathinab 6y ago
I did crunch time once. (In my case ironically I was the problem, it was fully unnecessary and no one but me involved).
Thinks I learned from it:
- It's very daunting.
- It's quite bad for your health, especially your mental health.
- It's bad for productivity. Which means it's a fatal cycle: you do crunch time => because of stress and exhaustion you are less productive => you need to do even more crunch because you where not productive enough.
- It's bad for quality. Sure all your tests pass and the many problem(s) seems fixed, but there is a good chance that you will have to pay extra in the long run due to technical dept or just sub-optimal design.
- It's bad for creativity. I could more than one time majorly reduce my work by just reflecting on what is actually needed (in difference to what seems to be needed, is asked for by your team lead (i.e. not your customer)). The chance for this to happen under crunch is continuously decreasing with increasing frequency of crunch.
- EDIT: Because of the last 3 points, it's bad for getting things done in time as they will likely take longer on a "work done per hour" scalar.
- musicale 6y agoYeah, I don't know why companies do it because it is so counterproductive and damaging: it reduces quality and increases time to completion while harming employee health. Very brief crunches can maybe push you over a deadline but will (in my experience) result in lower overall productivity per hour (and higher defect rates) for the entire crunch + recovery interval. Which seems to mean do a two week crunch and then fire your developers, but replacing them is usually more costly than recovery time. It probably isn't a coincidence that universities often have two week final exam/final project periods followed by two (or more) weeks of vacation.