3 ms·
The worst team is the one with a single point of failure. All hell breaks loose if they're unavailable. This makes me wonder why managers have teams like this?
by thewhitetulip 5y ago
The worst team is the one with a single point of failure. All hell breaks loose if they're unavailable. This makes me wonder why managers have teams like this?
- WJW 5y agoThere is one type of team which is even worse than one with a single point of failure: those teams without anyone at all capable of fixing the system. Given that alternative, having a single point of failure is better than having nothing at all. It would of course be even better to have multiple capable employees, but you cannot always have the team you want with the hiring budget you have.
- LeifCarrotson 5y agoNot all managers have a primary concern of "trying to build a resilient team". Sometimes, the #1 goal is building a high-performance and/or high-quality product. Lack of team resilience, (temporary) downtime, risk of project failure due to an insufficient bus factor...they're all not good things, but they can be compromised in the pursuit of that goal. If you want high resilience as well as high performance and also high quality, well, you should go work at NASA, and hope that the Senate works out their budget issues...
- thewhitetulip 5y agoI was talking about regular tech companies not NASA or startups with funding issues. I think that your point stays valid there because reality is far far away from ideal case.
- myohmy 5y agoManagers fail up. So they can point to their tight budget in their next interview. Oh, they can also blame the single point of failure for being stupid and lazy. That tends to work a few times before their boss catches on.