I've long wondered what I might be able to keep an eye out for during onboarding/transfer that would help me tell overstuffed kitchens apart from optimally-calibrated engineering caves from a distance.
I'm also admittedly extremely curious what (broadly) had 1000 (and 500) engineers dedicated to it, when arguably only 50 were needed. Abstractly speaking that sounds a lot like coordinational/planning micromanagement, where the manglement had final say on how much effort needed to be expended where instead of allowing engineering to own the resource allocation process :/
(Am I describing the patently impossible? Not yet had experience in these types of environments)
> a lot like coordinational/planning micromanagement, where the manglement had final say on how much effort needed to be expended where instead of allowing engineering to own the resource allocation process
Yep, that's a fair assessment!
The 1000+ one was an ERP for mid-large businesses. They had 10 or so flagship products (all acquired) and wanted to consolidate it all into a single one. The failure was more on trying to join the 10 teams together (and including lots of field-only implementation consultants in the bunch), rather than picking a solid foundation that they already owned and handpicking what needed.
The 500+ was an online marketplace. They had that many people because that was a condition imposed by investors. People ended up owning parts of a screen, so something that was a "two-man in a sprint" ended up being a whole team. It was demoralising but I still like the company.
I don't think it's impossible to notice, but it's hard... you can ask during interviews about numbers of employees, what each one does, ask for examples of what each team does on a daily basis. Honestly 100, 500, 1000 people for a company is not really a lot, but 100, 500, 1000 for a single project is definitely a red flag for me now, and anyone trying to pull the "but think of the scale!!!" card is a bullshit artist.
> rather than picking a solid foundation that they already owned and handpicking what needed.
Mmmm.
I wonder if a close alternative (notwithstanding lack of context to optimally calibrate ideas off of) might have involved leaving all the engineers alone to compare notes for 6-12 months with the singular top-down goal of "decide what components and teams do what best." That could be interesting... but it leans very heavily on preexisting competence, initiative and proactivity (not to mention conflict resolution >:D), and is probably a bit spherical-cow...
> The 500+ was an online marketplace. They had that many people because that was a condition imposed by investors.
*Constructs getaway vehicle in spare time* AAAAAaaaaaa
Sad engineering face :<
> I don't think it's impossible to notice, but it's hard... you can ask during interviews about numbers of employees, what each one does, ask for examples of what each team does on a daily basis.
Noted. Thanks.
> Honestly 100, 500, 1000 people for a company is not really a lot, but 100, 500, 1000 for a single project is definitely a red flag for me now, and anyone trying to pull the "but think of the scale!!!" card is a bullshit artist.
> what I might be able to keep an eye out for during onboarding/transfer that would help me tell overstuffed kitchens apart from optimally-calibrated engineering caves from a distance
The biggest thing I've been able to correlate are command styles: imperative vs declarative.
I.e. is management used to telling engineering how to do the work? Or communicating a desired end result and letting engineering figure it out?
I think fundamentally this is correlated with bloat vs lean because the kind of organizations that hire headcount thoughtlessly inevitably attempt to manage the chaos by pulling back more control into the PM role. Which consequently leads to imperative command styles: my boss tells me what to do, I tell you, you do it.
The quintessential quote from a call at a bad job was a manager saying "We definitely don't want to deliver anything they didn't ask for." This after having to cobble together 3/4 of the spec during the project, because so much functionality was missed.
Or in interview question form posed to the interviewer: "Describe how you're told what to build for a new project." and "Describe the process if you identify a new feature during implementation and want to pitch it for inclusion."
Of course. Wow, I never thought about management like that before. But particularly in software development it makes so much sense for people to jump toward this sort of mindset.
There really is an art to scaling problems to humans so the individual work (across management and engineering) falls within the sweet spot of cognitive saturation. TIL yet another dimension that can go sideways.
I'm also admittedly extremely curious what (broadly) had 1000 (and 500) engineers dedicated to it, when arguably only 50 were needed. Abstractly speaking that sounds a lot like coordinational/planning micromanagement, where the manglement had final say on how much effort needed to be expended where instead of allowing engineering to own the resource allocation process :/
(Am I describing the patently impossible? Not yet had experience in these types of environments)