3 ms·
That's exactly the point. Since there is always going to be overhead to administer anything, does it not make sense to have less things to be administered?
by argumentum 14y ago
That's exactly the point. Since there is always going to be overhead to administer anything, does it not make sense to have less things to be administered?
- kaonashi 14y agoIf you're making an efficiency argument, then it really depends on the details. You could conceivably have 10 programs that are horribly mismanaged, and 100 that are well-run.
- argumentum 14y agoThe more programs you have, the more you have to manage the managing of programs, making it less likely that any one program will be well-managed.
- kaonashi 14y agoSometimes the virtues of consolidating purposes are outdone by the virtues of redundancy. A single program is a single point of failure.