4 ms·

> Events like the Github fiasco should not be mentioned in the open allocation debate ... Well I guess you'd have to take that up with Mike as you're really re

by gaelian 12y ago

> Events like the Github fiasco should not be mentioned in the open allocation debate ... Well I guess you'd have to take that up with Mike as you're really referencing his opinion not mine. In that instance I was neither trying to praise or criticise the kind of company structure that appears to be represented by Valve/GitHub (if "open allocation" better describes this phenomenon then I'll take your word for that). In fact I only mentioned it because it was the context within which my discussion of Atlassian's culture began on the evening in question. I personally find this open allocation concept quite fascinating and think it potentially holds a lot promise. Most people working in corporate environments today would be lying if they said there wasn't huge room for innovation and efficiency gains at their workplace. To my knowledge however, I am unaware of any situation where an open allocation culture has been successfully retro-fitted to an existing corporate environment (if you know of one, I'd be interested). I'm also skeptical in relation to how well an open allocation culture would work out once a company grows beyond a certain inflection point. I'm not well read enough on this matter to put a stake in the ground and define that exact inflection point. But for the sake of illustration, let's say I'd be interested to know how such a culture would work out when applied to an organization consisting of thousands of employees as opposed to dozens or even hundreds.

michaelochurch 12y ago
To my knowledge however, I am unaware of any situation where an open allocation culture has been successfully retro-fitted to an existing corporate environment (if you know of one, I'd be interested). That is hard as hell, to be honest. Paradoxically, I think it requires a top-down commitment. Companies usually want to try this sort of thing incrementally. So they put their best people into an R&D group that has a fair amount of autonomy. However, over time what seems to happen is that it's resented and attacked, and eventually has to spend more time fighting political battles than innovating. At that point, it's often just as underperforming as the rest of the organization, the experiment is judged a failure, and that autonomy is taken away. It's the "fish frying" problem (http://www.strikemag.org/bullshit-jobs/ http://www.strikemag.org/bullshit-jobs/). I'm also skeptical in relation to how well an open allocation culture would work out once a company grows beyond a certain inflection point. I'm not well read enough on this matter to put a stake in the ground and define that exact inflection point. Gore-tex uses open allocation and is large (almost 10,000 employees, if I recall correctly). What I don't think OA can survive is too-rapid growth. I think it can scale to thousands of employees. I don't think it can tolerate personnel growth at the 100-150%/year levels that VCs want to see.
- gaelian 12y ago
  > Gore-tex uses open allocation and is large (almost 10,000 employees, if I recall correctly). Thanks for the tip on Gore-tex, hadn't heard about them. > What I don't think OA can survive is too-rapid growth. I think it can scale to thousands of employees. I don't think it can tolerate personnel growth at the 100-150%/year levels that VCs want to see. So the important thing is to ensure that there remains a solid core of staff of an influential enough size that understands the open allocation process/culture in order to successfully orient new comers arriving at a reasonable pace. That's potentially quite an interesting insight, I'll remember that one.

by gaelian 12y ago

michaelochurch 12y ago

To my knowledge however, I am unaware of any situation where an open allocation culture has been successfully retro-fitted to an existing corporate environment (if you know of one, I'd be interested). That is hard as hell, to be honest. Paradoxically, I think it requires a top-down commitment. Companies usually want to try this sort of thing incrementally. So they put their best people into an R&D group that has a fair amount of autonomy. However, over time what seems to happen is that it's resented and attacked, and eventually has to spend more time fighting political battles than innovating. At that point, it's often just as underperforming as the rest of the organization, the experiment is judged a failure, and that autonomy is taken away. It's the "fish frying" problem (http://www.strikemag.org/bullshit-jobs/ http://www.strikemag.org/bullshit-jobs/). I'm also skeptical in relation to how well an open allocation culture would work out once a company grows beyond a certain inflection point. I'm not well read enough on this matter to put a stake in the ground and define that exact inflection point. Gore-tex uses open allocation and is large (almost 10,000 employees, if I recall correctly). What I don't think OA can survive is too-rapid growth. I think it can scale to thousands of employees. I don't think it can tolerate personnel growth at the 100-150%/year levels that VCs want to see.

gaelian 12y ago
> Gore-tex uses open allocation and is large (almost 10,000 employees, if I recall correctly). Thanks for the tip on Gore-tex, hadn't heard about them. > What I don't think OA can survive is too-rapid growth. I think it can scale to thousands of employees. I don't think it can tolerate personnel growth at the 100-150%/year levels that VCs want to see. So the important thing is to ensure that there remains a solid core of staff of an influential enough size that understands the open allocation process/culture in order to successfully orient new comers arriving at a reasonable pace. That's potentially quite an interesting insight, I'll remember that one.