[gameprogrammer] Re: job field security

On Mon, 2004-08-30 at 06:53, Chris Nystrom wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 11:19:53 -0300, Adilson Oliveira
> <adilson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > I agree that if only the financial cost is taken into consideration than
> > it's a stupid move and I think that a company that is stupid enough to
> > do such move will not stay in business for long.
> 
> Paul Graham's _Great Hackers_ essay disccusses the wide variation in
> programming productivity among individuals:
> 
>   http://www.paulgraham.com/gh.html
> 
> Well worth reading by those who are hiring, and those who wish to be hired.
> 
> Chris

The issue of programmer productivity only address one small part of the
equation. It ignores the risk side of the equation and the control side
of the equation. 

If you want to reduce risk you have to reduce the number of "key" people
in the organization. You can't have one person, or even a small group of
people who can kill the company by quiting or dying on the freeway on
the way to work. 

>From the risk point of view it is much better to have a 100 average
programmers than to have 5 really good programmers. You lose an average
programmer and you have lost 1% of your productivity. You can make up
for that loss of productivity by getting your other programmers to work
a little longer. That average programmer can be replaced in a day or so
through a temp agency on a temp to hire plan. 

You lose one really good programmer and you have lost 20% of your
productivity. You other really good programmers can not take up the
slack. It takes a long time to find a replacement, and there is no good
way to make sure you have actually hired a good replacement. It might
take you a year or more to replace the really good programmer.

The management techniques that work with a group of average programmers
are very different than the ones that work with really good programmers.
The really good programmers have to have more total understanding of a
project to work the way they do. That means that it takes a lot longer
for a really good programmer to come up to speed on a complex project.

All in all, from a risk point of view, a company can not afford to have
very many really good programmers. They are a business risk.

Then there is the problem of control. The managers of the company want
to have control. If you have a small group of programmers who are the
only people who understand the companies products, procedures, and IT
architecture (pick any one) then the programmers control the company.
That is not acceptable to the managers of the company. The result? They
fire anyone who begins to look indispensable. 

Graham is coming from the point of view of a very small company that was
able to compete by being made up of only very good programmers. In that
case the programmers are the company, the managers, the owners, and they
can kick ass so long as they keep focused on the business and don't
start wandering down rabbit hole chasing technical goodness. 

Programmers who are both really good programmers and who are able to
keep their eye on the business are so rare that you just can't count on
getting any of them for your business. 

                Bob Pendleton

-- 
+--------------------------------------+
+ Bob Pendleton: writer and programmer +
+ email: Bob@xxxxxxxxxxxxx             +
+ blog:  www.Stonewolf.net             +
+ web:   www.GameProgrammer.com        +
+--------------------------------------+



---------------------
To unsubscribe go to http://gameprogrammer.com/mailinglist.html

Other related posts: