3 ms·

I’d love to see this article more fully fleshed out. What happened after the split?

• weare138 4y ago
  That is something I immediately noticed. There's no follow up as to whether any of this actually worked. This just seems like a way for management to rationalize understaffing and shift the blame to anything but the lack of adequate staff. The article paradoxically argues against specialization but then goes on to say generalist must choose a team and specialize in certain team tasks. The entire article just smacks of managerial double-speak that puts employees in a situation that's unwinnable by design while alleviating management of any responsibility for their decisions. Don't specialize enough? Well that's the employees fault. And if they over specialize? Well that's their fault too. Just hire more people. And if you can't afford to adequately staff your own company, that's your fault not your employees. Your poor management skills is what got you into that situation. You have no one to blame but yourself.
  • cleansingfire 4y ago
    It's so refreshing to be reminded that much of what we're looking at may just be the equivalent of useless self help books. Nobody goes broke oversimplifying problems and selling cheap fixes, and as technologists who have seen the power of technologies to exceed the power of magic, we're vulnerable to believing too much. Churn is not progress, and easy is rarely right. Thanks for the reality check.
• bradknowles 4y ago
  I can't speak for TFA, but for the team I'm working on, I think the split is going well. Each of the subteams works on their part of the problem, and works closely with the members of the other subteam when there is overlap. But because the subteams are smaller, the stand ups are a lot shorter, the meetings are fewer and shorter, and we can get more real work done.