7 ms·
In many cases it is worth far more to a company to get a solution out the door in 12 months at greater expense than to wait for a more cost-efficient team to fi
by raganwald 15y ago
In many cases it is worth far more to a company to get a solution out the door in 12 months at greater expense than to wait for a more cost-efficient team to finish in, say, 24.
I ask whether we can just take it as a given that large teams can get a given piece of software done more quickly than a small team. It may happen some of the time, it may not. But I have trouble granting it as axiomatic, for reasons that would require a blog post to list:
http://weblog.raganwald.com/2007/08/bricks.html http://weblog.raganwald.com/2007/08/bricks.html
- sliverstorm 15y agoIf you are discussing variances of a few percent in team size, sure- there is an optimal size and it may be smaller than we expect. But do you really expect you could write a project the size of, say, Linux or Office, with a four-man team faster than a hundred-man team? Even if half the latter team is utterly useless, and the team runs 10% the efficiency of the four-man team, you still have more production power. Obviously it costs twenty times as much, but as a previous poster noted, sometimes that just doesn't matter.
- raganwald 15y agoBoth of your examples are extremely interesting! Tell me: Did they start with 100s of people?