small medium large xlarge

Back to: All Forums  PragPub
Headshot_pragsmall
03 Feb 2011, 13:13
Brian Tarbox (41 posts)

Craig Riecke asserts that “If you have 40% fewer programmers around you, you should have 40% less code to maintain”. In my 30 years of experience in the field I have NEVER seen that be the case, and I’ve never heard of it being the case.

Companies downsize to cut expenses while hopefully maintain or expanding income. This always means more absolute work for a smaller workforce which means dramatically more work per worker.

Its an interesting article but one this key point its just wrong.

172848_pragsmall
05 Feb 2011, 14:24
Craig Riecke (19 posts)

I hear you, and it happens initially in every department that gets downsized. The staff is cut 40% and the remaining 60% are expected to do the same amount of work. But within months, it becomes clear there ain’t no free lunch. People can’t just 40% more productive through wishful thinking. It’s amazing that companies continually forget this, thinking layoffs are a magic bullet, but they do.

What I would say, and what I should’ve said in the article, is that any company who doesn’t get a clue about this will eventually lose workers. Because other clue-ful companies will get it, be realistic about it, and size their codebase (or their staff size) accordingly, and they will attract the better talent.

Gordon-red_pragsmall
08 Apr 2011, 02:49
Gordon J Milne (1 post)

Well, staff can only move onto more clue-ful companies if there are plenty of other companies to go to. If there aren’t because of a poor economy of because that level of opportunity is rare in their geographic region (as it is in my case) then people stay and put up with what they have got, no matter how much it pains them to do so.

You must be logged in to comment