4 ms·

Let me describe the structure of a project I witnessed but thankfully was never part of (and see if I can get the formatting right) Subcontractor which did the

Let me describe the structure of a project I witnessed but thankfully was never part of (and see if I can get the formatting right) Subcontractor which did the work: - 2 devs - 1 accountant - 1 project manager Contracted under: - 1 project lead - 1 dev lead - 4 QA engineers - 1 lead QA engineer - 3 accountants - 1 lead accountant - 2 document reviewers - 1 lead document reviewer The actual people doing the work spent 1 month writing documentation and then changed ...10 lines of code. This software was not mission critical, no lives were at stake, and if there was a bug the danger was negligible. That's government in action. I whole heartedly believe that there are 100 people at work here.

lukeschlather 11y ago
That sounds typical for any large legacy codebase serving hundreds of customers. It's not a government thing, it's just the nature of large projects. It's also not as simple as saying that it's waste. Changing 10 lines of code in an app that has been live for years can be the result of months of work and careful ruling out of 10,000 lines of code you decided not to change.
harperlee 11y ago
> 1 project lead - 1 dev lead - 4 QA engineers - 1 lead QA engineer - 3 accountants - 1 lead accountant - 2 document reviewers - 1 lead document reviewer Were all these people 100% on the project? My experience is that these roles usually are overhead for lot's of projects.
- wheaties 11y ago
  100% that project alone. Remember, qa people in government contracts often are concerned less with qa'ing the code and more qa'ing the process within which the code is developed.