If you’re working in a big group, you’re fighting human nature(37signals.com)
37signals.com
If you’re working in a big group, you’re fighting human nature
http://www.37signals.com/svn/posts/995-if-youre-working-in-a-big-group-youre-fighting-human-nature
12 comments
didn't pg write an essay on this? or at least is was a major part of one of his essays?
At least he gathered some new quotes and anecdotal evidence. I particularly like the "two-pizza" reference.
(Completely off topic, but "real" pizzas, in Italy, are one per person).
I enjoyed it enough to add here, for those with out time.
I believe both Apple and Amazon (two companies I respect a lot for their version 1.0s) talk about “two-pizza teams” — that is, keeping the team small enough that it can be fed with two pizzas…If the company that made the iPod believes in a two-pizza team, how can you justify putting 90 people in the room?
I believe both Apple and Amazon (two companies I respect a lot for their version 1.0s) talk about “two-pizza teams” — that is, keeping the team small enough that it can be fed with two pizzas…If the company that made the iPod believes in a two-pizza team, how can you justify putting 90 people in the room?
If the company that made the iPod has a founder who wears a black mock turtleneck, how can you justify not wearing one?
Because the company doesn't believe that is the black mock turtleneck that is going to work on the product.
[deleted]
Some time ago I wrote to PG about this very subject:
Paul Graham wrote: | Thanks, John. Dunbar's number is more about the size of societies than | the size of a group that can cooperate to complete a task. There the number | is more like 8-12, which I believe prob corresponds to the smallest unit | in an army.
Not sure the army is the best analogy since they operate with large amounts of funding and not the same restraints as a start up. Terror organizations are a better analogy since they have to combine team effectiveness with minimal size (for security and finance reasons). This seems a lot like a start up that needs an effective team of the smallest size (for mostly finance reasons).
For example, the IRA was divided into 6 to 8 man operational units.
Paul Graham wrote: | Thanks, John. Dunbar's number is more about the size of societies than | the size of a group that can cooperate to complete a task. There the number | is more like 8-12, which I believe prob corresponds to the smallest unit | in an army.
Not sure the army is the best analogy since they operate with large amounts of funding and not the same restraints as a start up. Terror organizations are a better analogy since they have to combine team effectiveness with minimal size (for security and finance reasons). This seems a lot like a start up that needs an effective team of the smallest size (for mostly finance reasons).
For example, the IRA was divided into 6 to 8 man operational units.
FWIW, the smallest US infantry unit is the fireteam, comprised of 4 men. I think it's 2 fireteams to a squad.
Sounds like a 2-pizza outfit to me.
Sounds like a 2-pizza outfit to me.
The army examples don't mean a lot imo. They have unit sizes across a lot of different scales, so it's not significant that some happen to fall into this range.