9 ms·

I guess so many checks in a big company could be considered the biggest mistake of all?

by t0pj 18y ago

unalone 18y ago
Well, as companies get larger they can afford less and less to make mistakes. If I'm running a start-up company, I can get away with changing things abruptly, because I have a smaller base of users and I have fewer people relying on my running at production-level. Also, chances are I'll be able to look at user feedback effectively. Once you get large, and your company is providing sustenance for all your employees, people rely on your product, and you've got too many users for effective feedback-checking, you have to close up, take fewer risks. Because suddenly, people want you to move slowly. They don't want you constantly skyrocketing ahead with their playing backup. Look at any big company - even Google, which was once famous for moving quickly - and you'll see that part of what gives a big company a good reputation is its being "solid." They have to give things up for an advantage. It's why newspapers are so relied-upon. Of course, now it's what is hurting newspapers the most. They're being beaten by the flexible Internet. But even there, we're seeing a trade-off. Look at the quality of stories by the top writers online and by the top NY Times writers, and the online writers are much more amateur. They're faster, occasionally they're more interesting, but the Internet is thus far not retaining a high level of professionalism among reporting. Similarly, start-ups are much less reliable on the whole than large companies - look at Twitter and its problems, for instance. So I think that PG's article is right. You can't restrict people and expect them to do as well. However, too much freedom leads to less stability, so it becomes a trade-off. Everything in moderation.
- dcurtis 18y ago
  This thinking has always kind of confused me. Why are customers/users at a big company more important than those at a startup? Just because there's more of them, now you can't make mistakes? If you have the agility to make rapid production changes, you also have the ability to rapidly rollback. So the argument that larger companies require more checks and testing than startups isn't really valid, especially when you consider the costs.
  - marvin 18y ago
    I think this phenomenon is caused by the culture of fear among most employees. Screwing up badly will get you fired, the greatest fear of all. Most employees have heavy mortgages and children, and require a consistent and predictable income. (This state of things is a problem in itself, but that's another topic). The big issue is that the level of fear increases as you move up the command structure. Let's assume one of your startups has crashed and burned. Something really spectacular must have happened if this makes potential customers of your next startup spurn you. Taking risks may have consequences, but they are temporary. But if you are a high-level manager for a large company, spectacular failure will make you unemployable, or in the best case push you several steps down the ladder - steps which took years of boredom and politics to climb, and which you will never get back. Failure is punished disproportionately, success is rarely compensated. Conservatism is the correct choice for each individual actor. We all know bureaucracy, culture and politics - existing companies won't change in this area.
  - unalone 18y ago
    No, it's that most people don't want to use a product that changes often, if at all. They get it for what it is and if it changes, it means disrupting their way of using it. When you're working with a smaller product, you can iterate more and work closely with the people using it. When it gets larger, any change you make will alienate some users, so you have to plan to minimize that alienation. You can change and roll back features quickly, but that gives an impression of instability among users. If things are constantly changing, they'll seek out something more stable. It's "lowest common denominator" thinking. It results in something that nobody dislikes, and that's the goal of larger groups. Niche companies are able to work much better, but even then there's some slowdown.
    - jumper 18y ago
      I think this is particularly important given that often the biggest cost in using a new product\tool is learning to use it well... if it's changing all the time, with no release schedule or no attempt to stabilize the main release via betas\QA\etc, then it gets very frustrating to learn.
  - 18y ago

I guess so many checks in a big company could be considered the biggest mistake of all?

by t0pj 18y ago

I guess so many checks in a big company could be considered the biggest mistake of all?

Well, as companies get larger they can afford less and less to make mistakes. If I'm running a start-up company, I can get away with changing things abruptly, because I have a smaller base of users and I have fewer people relying on my running at production-level. Also, chances are I'll be able to look at user feedback effectively. Once you get large, and your company is providing sustenance for all your employees, people rely on your product, and you've got too many users for effective feedback-checking, you have to close up, take fewer risks. Because suddenly, people want you to move slowly. They don't want you constantly skyrocketing ahead with their playing backup. Look at any big company - even Google, which was once famous for moving quickly - and you'll see that part of what gives a big company a good reputation is its being "solid." They have to give things up for an advantage. It's why newspapers are so relied-upon. Of course, now it's what is hurting newspapers the most. They're being beaten by the flexible Internet. But even there, we're seeing a trade-off. Look at the quality of stories by the top writers online and by the top NY Times writers, and the online writers are much more amateur. They're faster, occasionally they're more interesting, but the Internet is thus far not retaining a high level of professionalism among reporting. Similarly, start-ups are much less reliable on the whole than large companies - look at Twitter and its problems, for instance. So I think that PG's article is right. You can't restrict people and expect them to do as well. However, too much freedom leads to less stability, so it becomes a trade-off. Everything in moderation.

dcurtis 18y ago
This thinking has always kind of confused me. Why are customers/users at a big company more important than those at a startup? Just because there's more of them, now you can't make mistakes? If you have the agility to make rapid production changes, you also have the ability to rapidly rollback. So the argument that larger companies require more checks and testing than startups isn't really valid, especially when you consider the costs.
- marvin 18y ago
  I think this phenomenon is caused by the culture of fear among most employees. Screwing up badly will get you fired, the greatest fear of all. Most employees have heavy mortgages and children, and require a consistent and predictable income. (This state of things is a problem in itself, but that's another topic). The big issue is that the level of fear increases as you move up the command structure. Let's assume one of your startups has crashed and burned. Something really spectacular must have happened if this makes potential customers of your next startup spurn you. Taking risks may have consequences, but they are temporary. But if you are a high-level manager for a large company, spectacular failure will make you unemployable, or in the best case push you several steps down the ladder - steps which took years of boredom and politics to climb, and which you will never get back. Failure is punished disproportionately, success is rarely compensated. Conservatism is the correct choice for each individual actor. We all know bureaucracy, culture and politics - existing companies won't change in this area.
- unalone 18y ago
  No, it's that most people don't want to use a product that changes often, if at all. They get it for what it is and if it changes, it means disrupting their way of using it. When you're working with a smaller product, you can iterate more and work closely with the people using it. When it gets larger, any change you make will alienate some users, so you have to plan to minimize that alienation. You can change and roll back features quickly, but that gives an impression of instability among users. If things are constantly changing, they'll seek out something more stable. It's "lowest common denominator" thinking. It results in something that nobody dislikes, and that's the goal of larger groups. Niche companies are able to work much better, but even then there's some slowdown.
  - jumper 18y ago
    I think this is particularly important given that often the biggest cost in using a new product\tool is learning to use it well... if it's changing all the time, with no release schedule or no attempt to stabilize the main release via betas\QA\etc, then it gets very frustrating to learn.
- 18y ago