3 ms·

This video has given me a newfound respect for Facebook. Many engineers at tech companies like Google, Facebook, Microsoft, etc. report that they feel overqual

This video has given me a newfound respect for Facebook. Many engineers at tech companies like Google, Facebook, Microsoft, etc. report that they feel overqualified for their work. I imagine many yearn for the chance to work on moonshot projects like these - is there any reason why secretive research divisions at these companies are so small, when there is plenty of engineering talent to go around internally?

g_delgado14 11y ago
I'm guessing cause the 'overqualified' engineers are tied up with what they were hired to do. Not to mention that the monumental risk that a company takes on when they do moonshot projects. There are very lax expectations of any profitability in the near term, so there seems to be large disincentives to invest heavily ... esp when the company is public and facing quarter by quarter scrutiny.
nostrademons 11y ago
Because more engineers makes for a worse product, particularly if you're doing something very innovative that requires a lot of iteration. The amount of code you can write grows linearly with number of engineers, but communication costs grow quadratically. Therefore, the speed at which you can execute is inversely proportional to the size of the team, unless you can cut communication costs. Established projects can do this with architectural decisions that prevent one engineer from needing to know about or communicate with other engineers working on unrelated parts of the product. New projects cannot, because the architecture hasn't been established yet. That's why every innovative product grows out of a small team.
aakster 11y ago
I think also because there is some negative sentiment to projects like these from people like bill gates, companies like FB try to keep it on the down low until they have something worth showing.
motoboi 11y ago
There is this idea that small teams with great leadership are more effective at innovation.

g_delgado14 11y ago

I'm guessing cause the 'overqualified' engineers are tied up with what they were hired to do. Not to mention that the monumental risk that a company takes on when they do moonshot projects. There are very lax expectations of any profitability in the near term, so there seems to be large disincentives to invest heavily ... esp when the company is public and facing quarter by quarter scrutiny.

nostrademons 11y ago

Because more engineers makes for a worse product, particularly if you're doing something very innovative that requires a lot of iteration. The amount of code you can write grows linearly with number of engineers, but communication costs grow quadratically. Therefore, the speed at which you can execute is inversely proportional to the size of the team, unless you can cut communication costs. Established projects can do this with architectural decisions that prevent one engineer from needing to know about or communicate with other engineers working on unrelated parts of the product. New projects cannot, because the architecture hasn't been established yet. That's why every innovative product grows out of a small team.

aakster 11y ago

I think also because there is some negative sentiment to projects like these from people like bill gates, companies like FB try to keep it on the down low until they have something worth showing.

motoboi 11y ago

There is this idea that small teams with great leadership are more effective at innovation.