4 ms·
The former is costlier. It's litteraly a gamble that your one IT guy won't: - just leave - get sick (including burn out) - move to another country - get hit
by makeitdouble 2y ago
The former is costlier. It's litteraly a gamble that your one IT guy won't:
- just leave
- get sick (including burn out)
- move to another country
- get hit by a bus
It just doesn't make sense in the long term.
PS: bot even counting that the negociating power of that single guy is incredible.
- ryandvm 2y agoI used to worry about "bus factor", but after seeing countless "indespensible" people leave abruptly and the companies recover just fine, I don't really think it's an issue. It generally sets objectives back a few weeks and that's about it.
- talldatethrow 2y agoI knew an entire custom manufacturing company with 40 employees run with one main engineer, who worked 50-60 hours to complete his work so the employees in the shop could run the machines and do assembly. He died one day suddenly at 50 years old. He had been the sole engineer for 10 years. A week later I was training his replacement on how to use the PM tool I provide for his company. Same office, same chair.
- makeitdouble 2y agoIt then comes down to whether you can afford to be off for weeks. Another aspect of this is the hiring of a new guy: I've seen it times and times, where the company doesn't have anyone to evaluate candidates, so they end up peddling more time and money to even get to the point they can start interviewing. Of course it all comes down to the balance between how much you save keeping a single guy on staff, vs how much it costs when shit hits the fan.