4 ms·

I used to worry about my relative lack of splashy "side projects". So I'd sit down to work on one, and within five minutes I'd be asking myself: "Should I work

I used to worry about my relative lack of splashy "side projects". So I'd sit down to work on one, and within five minutes I'd be asking myself: "Should I work on this side project, or should I pick a bug off my company's bug tracker and fix it, thereby making dozens of customers measurably happier, making my manager happier, making my company marginally richer, delighting the customer-support team to the point that they high-five me in the company cafeteria, and making the product I work on every day just a little bit more satisfying?" The side projects kept losing this argument. But I fail to see the problem with that. Meanwhile, I guess I won't be getting a job at your company, but that's fine. As someone who likes his day job to be satisfying, I'm probably not a good fit.

HarryHirsch 13y ago
> The side projects kept losing this argument. But I fail to see the problem with that. This is the company's problem. Seriously. At places like Dupont and Merck it was mandatory for a scientist in R&D to work on projects of their own choosing and publish. The research was part of your evaluation, and if you didn't measure up you were out. I believe at least Dupont still uses this model.
nostrademons 13y ago
I've faced the same dilemma ever since I started working at Google (and hence, all my side projects have long since died - well, that and the rather draconian IP agreement restrictions). I think it's a natural outcome of working at a place with real users vs. a side project with no real users. But I worry that this is just another form of putting all your eggs in one basket. Taken to its logical conclusion, this works great until the market shifts around you and suddenly your company's product doesn't have users either. And meanwhile, you haven't been keeping your skills sharp so you're at a severe disadvantage when you do have to switch projects.

HarryHirsch 13y ago

> The side projects kept losing this argument. But I fail to see the problem with that. This is the company's problem. Seriously. At places like Dupont and Merck it was mandatory for a scientist in R&D to work on projects of their own choosing and publish. The research was part of your evaluation, and if you didn't measure up you were out. I believe at least Dupont still uses this model.

nostrademons 13y ago

I've faced the same dilemma ever since I started working at Google (and hence, all my side projects have long since died - well, that and the rather draconian IP agreement restrictions). I think it's a natural outcome of working at a place with real users vs. a side project with no real users. But I worry that this is just another form of putting all your eggs in one basket. Taken to its logical conclusion, this works great until the market shifts around you and suddenly your company's product doesn't have users either. And meanwhile, you haven't been keeping your skills sharp so you're at a severe disadvantage when you do have to switch projects.