3 ms·
> The arguments are entirely false: ex N^2 communication. No team depends on every [other] team in the org. From the article: "You can’t just work on whatever
by dventimi 3y ago
> The arguments are entirely false: ex N^2 communication. No team depends on every [other] team in the org.
From the article:
"You can’t just work on whatever you want; coordinating would be an O(N^2) communication mess."
Evidently, you're agreeing with the article. So which part is false then?
- fnordpiglet 3y agoThat coordinating is a quadratic mess, because no task requires bidirectional communicating with everyone else. I also disagree with all the other points they make about large companies. Not that there exists teams in large companies that suffer these issues, but that there exists no teams in large companies that don’t have these issues. I further extended it to say startups also aren’t without issue, and many are totally screwed up. They just don’t last very long.
- dventimi 3y agoLet's set aside value judgements. After all, I don't know that small startups are optimal any more than you know that they aren't. Hopefully, what we can agree on is that small startups are different from large companies, even those with teams. Given that, someone who LIKES their small startup for whatever reason may feel it's lost its lustre when it evolves into a large company. For those people, this article offers an explanation for why that might be.
- fnordpiglet 3y agoOr, it gives a guide for the problems to avoid and figure out strategies to solve for to avoid that path. But, yes, if the article were written that way, I would have agreed with it more. But it wasn’t :-)
- dventimi 3y agoHopefully you'll forgive me if I think it WAS written that way.