3 ms·
This is always the issue, no institutional buy-in. One thing I learned a long time ago is that a "bad" process that is followed universally by everyone (dev, p
by snarf21 5y ago
This is always the issue, no institutional buy-in.
One thing I learned a long time ago is that a "bad" process that is followed universally by everyone (dev, pjm, pm) will always out perform a "great" process with only token buy-in and constant exceptions.
- endofreach 5y agoThis is the most important productivity hack, a lot of people just don‘t understand.
- spiralx 5y agoConsistency allows even the worst process to become familiar enough to be improved on and reduces the overload of having to context switch unexpectedly, and it's amazing how much time can be wasted by people not knowing what process to use and having to either waste someone else's time to find out or do whatever their best guess is, probably wasting time much later on. If you've ever seen someone operating a terrible piece of old data entry software they've been using for decades it's amazing how fast someone can be even at jumping through pointless hoops to get the job done - often a problem when introducing a newer process that might seem more efficient from the outside!
- scott_middleton 5y agoIt's easier to take the path of least resistance and usually you won't get shot for it. Trying to fix things often makes you look like a trouble maker, especially if something doesn't work as well as it could (which often happens when iterating through change).