3 ms·

People at my company also always list budget and headcount restraints as the reason they couldn't have been more successful. It's almost like it's universal pol

• ghaff 12y ago
  Or it's like pretty much no one ever thinks there's enough money or people for whatever project they're driving. Maybe that's what you mean by "politics" but pretty much no organization ever--there are probably a few cases that come close to exceptions like the Manhattan Project, but not many--can get as much funding or staffing as they would like.
  • meowface 12y ago
    I wouldn't be surprised if the Manhattan Project was considered to be understaffed and underfunded as well. I don't know a lot about it, but my understanding is that at the time, leaders really had no idea if it was going to work or if it was worth all the effort.
    • ghaff 12y ago
      I imagine you're right :-) I was just throwing out the name of a 1 in a million project that may have potentially had all the resources it wanted given to it. But I'm sure even that project saw phone calls arguing for more support staff or whatever.
    • seanmcdirmid 12y ago
      They threw a lot of people and funding at the Manhattan project, it was a national priority at the time and not a really a good example of a project that was starved at all for resources (it was probably like: we need X; ok, you get X).