3 ms·

> People are not resources: each one of them will do different work and different amount of work. Different people have different resources, when you allocate

by dusted 4y ago

> People are not resources: each one of them will do different work and different amount of work. Different people have different resources, when you allocate a resource, you're allocating something someone can do, not something they can't do.. When you put resources on a project, the people follow along, since they're the ones with the resource in demand. I've never understood the resource as referring to a person, but rather, to the work that is expected that the person can do. If you need a C++ resource, you pick a person that can do C++, they may also be able to do PHP and SQL, but in this case, that's not what you're selecting for.

necovek 4y ago
Even then, your "C++ resource" will perform completely differently based on the person they are: eg. a junior C++ engineer will be slower than a mid/senior engineer, and an engineer providing a more maintainable solution might be slower too (and somebody un/familiar with the problem domain or API in use). I don't see how planning work for a "C++ resource" helps other than faking it over and over again.
- hk__2 4y ago
  In my specific case we all have roughly the same experience with each technology so it’s fine to consider people as interchangeable. Of course that doesn’t mean we don’t take preferences into account; it’s just to have a rough idea of our roadmap and know if we need to recruit.
  - dusted 4y ago
    I agree. Also, if people are so uniquely skilled that each and every task can only be made by a specific person (excuse me, "human being") then your bus-factor is 1 and a single person leaving, getting sick (or indeed, hit by a bus) means death for the project.. That's terrible. It's entirely reasonable to think of work and people using separate terms, I'd argue it's probably healthy too.. Now, that's not the same as ignoring personal preferences where they apply, for instance, when allocating resources to a task or project, of course, consideration should be taken when possible, "oh, person X hates doing this, but Y loves it, sure, X is slightly stronger at it, but we let Y do it, then they're happier and Y gets stronger too" I consider myself as being around a 1.3x javascript resource for backend, a 0.8x for frontend, and around a 0.5x resource for C++ (meaning I'll spend twice the amount of time doing the same task as someone I consider a 1x C++ resource).
    - necovek 4y ago
      > uniquely skilled I was mostly referring to how we all have different levels of expertise in some narrower domains. Just like your example of you being 1.3x at JS and 0.5x for C++: you can do C++ on a project, but you can't allocate two weeks on the C++ part of the project without deciding if it's you or 1.5x person doing the work. IOW, your roadmap is "faked".
  - necovek 4y ago
    Certainly, it's entirely possible you have people who can do roughly the same type of work. You still don't benefit at all from calling them "resources" — at best, nobody minds, until you hire someone who does :) I mean, this is not even a nerdy or funny name that only certain people would enjoy, so why not simply stick with "people"?

by dusted 4y ago

necovek 4y ago

Even then, your "C++ resource" will perform completely differently based on the person they are: eg. a junior C++ engineer will be slower than a mid/senior engineer, and an engineer providing a more maintainable solution might be slower too (and somebody un/familiar with the problem domain or API in use). I don't see how planning work for a "C++ resource" helps other than faking it over and over again.

hk__2 4y ago
In my specific case we all have roughly the same experience with each technology so it’s fine to consider people as interchangeable. Of course that doesn’t mean we don’t take preferences into account; it’s just to have a rough idea of our roadmap and know if we need to recruit.
- dusted 4y ago
  I agree. Also, if people are so uniquely skilled that each and every task can only be made by a specific person (excuse me, "human being") then your bus-factor is 1 and a single person leaving, getting sick (or indeed, hit by a bus) means death for the project.. That's terrible. It's entirely reasonable to think of work and people using separate terms, I'd argue it's probably healthy too.. Now, that's not the same as ignoring personal preferences where they apply, for instance, when allocating resources to a task or project, of course, consideration should be taken when possible, "oh, person X hates doing this, but Y loves it, sure, X is slightly stronger at it, but we let Y do it, then they're happier and Y gets stronger too" I consider myself as being around a 1.3x javascript resource for backend, a 0.8x for frontend, and around a 0.5x resource for C++ (meaning I'll spend twice the amount of time doing the same task as someone I consider a 1x C++ resource).
  - necovek 4y ago
    > uniquely skilled I was mostly referring to how we all have different levels of expertise in some narrower domains. Just like your example of you being 1.3x at JS and 0.5x for C++: you can do C++ on a project, but you can't allocate two weeks on the C++ part of the project without deciding if it's you or 1.5x person doing the work. IOW, your roadmap is "faked".
- necovek 4y ago
  Certainly, it's entirely possible you have people who can do roughly the same type of work. You still don't benefit at all from calling them "resources" — at best, nobody minds, until you hire someone who does :) I mean, this is not even a nerdy or funny name that only certain people would enjoy, so why not simply stick with "people"?