3 ms·
I think everything just has to be a large arbitrary tree of branches, with tasks going into subtasks until they are small bites enough to be divided amongst tea
by mewpmewp2 3y ago
I think everything just has to be a large arbitrary tree of branches, with tasks going into subtasks until they are small bites enough to be divided amongst teams. Then you measure how these tasks are going and if required you change the tasks or branches.
Everyone can move around the tree to see which team is responsible for which task and how any task on the whole is progressing.
- Lutger 3y agoWell, that is quite top-down and organized. If it works, then great. But I wouldn't push everything into such a plan. On the other hand, I've worked in such a disconnected 'bottom-up' org that after about 8 years, finally the CEO told us he didn't like the business model we had been developing and specializing in. The end result was like 90% of senior devs resigned. We were clueless. Maybe a little goal setting would have helped?
- mewpmewp2 3y agoI haven't ever seen anything like I described implemented the way I'd like to see if and the way I think it would work, so maybe it wouldn't work, but intuitively it would make most sense to me and I can personally imagine it working.