151–160 of 453 posts
If you are already spending >$200K per employee, spending another $10K to make them even 10% more productive is a bargain.
They are just going to pay their employees less. Companies have to be profitable, temporary exceptions notwithstanding, and the money has to come from somewhere.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where’s the list of awesome companies that succeed without managers?
I have yet to encounter a manager who motivates me to get up and find a way to eat that day. Just because they are there doesn’t mean the achievements are due to them. There have been a number of attempts, tens of millions of dollars spent on one study alone, trying to quantify what technologies and people generate value. The meta-conclusion considering all the studies I know of (traveling and not looking them up), i…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where’s the list of awesome companies that succeed without managers?
I have yet to encounter a manager who motivates me to get up and find a way to eat that day. Just because they are there doesn’t mean the achievements are due to them. There have been a number of attempts, tens of millions of dollars spent on one study alone, trying to quantify what technologies and people generate value. The meta-conclusion considering all the studies I know of (traveling and not looking them up), i…
This from the article: According to a recent analysis of more than 30 million transactions, Zylo—a local firm that helps its customers track and manage software subscriptions—found enterprise companies are spending an average of more than $10,000 per employee per year on software. So, for every 100 employees, companies are spending $1 million on software subscriptions. So what would an IT department, physical plant,…
That's usually not the case. SaaS usually does not replace in house machines, and it usually does not deal with high performance applications.
Cry me a river. It would cost a lot more if it were developed in-house.
Presuming these SaaS solutions are replacing internal dev, and internal staff (including benefits) then less than ~$900 p/m might be a steal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where’s the list of awesome companies that succeed without managers?
I have yet to encounter a manager who motivates me to get up and find a way to eat that day. Just because they are there doesn’t mean the achievements are due to them. There have been a number of attempts, tens of millions of dollars spent on one study alone, trying to quantify what technologies and people generate value. The meta-conclusion considering all the studies I know of (traveling and not looking them up), i…
Management is necessary to allocate resources (including labor) efficiently at scale, but it comes with overhead.
As such, at smaller companies, startups, small businesses, the overhead of management can be outsized, the pain felt acutely when compared relatively to the actual output of ICs and such.
At larger companies, the massive cadre of management which is necessary to keep the machine running is also very obvious, as the overhead of a large organization is very large, even if the management itself is excellent and highly efficient.
As such... How does one allocate credit? An analogy would be like financing or investment. Necessary. A filtering mechanism. Sometimes helpful in an advisory mechanism. But are they the ones creating output? No. But do they deserve some credit? If something cannot be done without it, then they must deserve SOME credit, it's just a question of how much.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It also allows to pocket more money instead of paying it to employee. Remember, many people in USA believe that corporation has duty to increase shareholder value. And similar stupid ideas.
Not sure if you are being facetious, but that's in fact the law. The board is a fiduciary of shareholder (investor) money. Is that a great idea for society? Not sure, until it changes we live in the world we live in. And on the productivity point, that makes a good theoretical case but it is just not demonstrated by historical data. In the US, in the past 50 years, it even has a name (the pay-productivity gap or the…
Fiduciary duty means that the board is supposed to be honest with the shareholders and not actively work against the corporation. That does not mean, in fact, that they are required to put growth of shareholder value to any respect.
O365 is the only SaaS platform that makes sense where I work. But we have a bunch of SaaS services because that is the only way the product is offered.
I hate SaaS.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, total cost would be a better measure since there is no per-person cost to the SaaS provider. If you have 10,000 employees that's $100M per year in expenses. If you're just renting payroll, purchasing, etc software for that price it'd be far cheaper to roll your own, or pay a few people to work on OSS full time.
Rolling your own payroll is about as good an idea as rolling your own crypto.