From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID,
	LOTS_OF_MONEY autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,5ea968aeb8c7f10d
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Thread: f43e6,d71a6822cd2fec5
X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public
From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Do I Really Need A Supervisor?
Date: 1997/03/19
Message-ID: <dewar.858770459@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 226734740
References: <5g7u24$1jeg@uni.library.ucla.edu>
 	<33285CC6.1CFB@ss5010.ca.boeing.com>
 	<dtaylor-1403972022000001@usr1-d2.iquest.com> 	<5ge9qr$gq$1@news.nyu.edu>
 <332D77DF.6956@ss5010.ca.boeing.com> 	<dewar.858635029@merv>
 <87iv2qt1lb.fsf@A-abe.resnet.ucsb.edu>
Organization: New York University
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng,comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-03-19T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Graham says

<<Strong perhaps.  Numerous probably not.  Otherwise decisions much go
through too many levels and too many ``adjustments''.  Certainly when
your administrative staff outnumbers your programmers, you have a very
big problem.  More generally, when the overseers outnumber the
workers, large problems occur.  Unfortunately, this situation is far
more common than people give credit for.

I believe Parkinson had it right, in _Parkinson's_Law_and_Other_Studies_
_in_Administration_.  Administration grows without bound, and without
regard to the amount of work being done.>>

Well I certainly agree that having too many management types around is
a big problem, but I am not sure that it is the biggest problem. In my
experience, the too-many-people syndrome is most serious at the technical
level. There are lots of projects where 90 low level people are desperately
struggling to do a bad job of implementing a system which 10 really good
people could do in a fraction of the time.

Very often this is the result of a beaurocratic structure which has no
problem in hiring hundreds of people and paying them $50,000, but recoils
in horror at the idea of replacing dozens of such low level people with
one really competent person and paying them what they are worth.

I certainly see this phenomenon at work in negotiating T&M rates with
the government. Very often you are in the position of saying:
if we charge $50 an hour, then we need to do this with low level people,
and the total cost will be $x. If we charge $200 an hour, then we can
do this with competent people and the charge will be $y. But often the
govt will prefer the $50 to the $200, even if $x is way bigger than $y.
Why is this choice made -- well obviously to hold costs down, $200 is
much too much! :-)