5 ms·
> will require an n log n number of people. (In bad organizations, it's n^2.) I understand this is signaling that the author understands technical concepts lik
by l33t233372 4y ago
> will require an n log n number of people. (In bad organizations, it's n^2.)
I understand this is signaling that the author understands technical concepts like big-O, but why use technical terms imprecisely when non-technical terms work just fine?
- baremetal 4y agoBecause it's fun, and well suited to the audience.
- margorczynski 4y agoWell it isn't fully clear to me what "n" here would be - seems a bit hand-wavy.
- marcosdumay 4y agoWhat non-technical term would communicate the same idea?
- astroalex 4y agoConsidering the audience, this language is more vivid and precise than saying something like "middle management causes bloat." It puts a picture in your head of how that bloat grows and what causes the bloat (the tree structure of the organization).
- ebiester 4y agoIt's not precise, but it's pretty close when you look at the number of management and support positions to individual contributors in many techinal organizations. It's beyond the scope of this conversation, but the short is that it seems to become a network effect problem. Every team does not work with every other team, but it does end up in a hub-and-spoke system with matrixes over the system. Oversight (ops, security, PMO) do not scale linearly because the competing priorities make scheduling more difficult. I've read others who have spoken about it, but I'd have to go back and find it.
- MrStonedOne 4y ago[dead]