Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What “work” looks like

blog.jim-nielsen.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 236 posts

Re: What “work” looks like

#181

Post by slifin »

willturman wrote: post #180
Test0129 wrote: post #16

I've had more ideas come to me after hiding in my office to take a nap than sitting at my desk. It got to be such a gold mine of solutions that I still to this day allocate 30 minutes of my day to a nap. Non-negotiable. So many hard problems that have been brought to me, or complicated needs for architecture, etc were solved by simply turning my active brain off. When I was in graduate school I'd regularly get stuck…

Hammock Driven Development by Rich Hickey [1] is a presentation that dives into why taking a step back from the immediacy of a problem often leads to clarity. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f84n5oFoZBc

The urge to invoice a Hammock for my home office to my employer

Re: What “work” looks like

#182

Post by scruple »

seti0Cha wrote: post #179
scruple wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aren't the Italians known for their coffee?

From what I've seen, Italian coffee consumption is nothing like American coffee consumption. They don't sip at enormous cups of drip coffee while working, but instead quickly drink small amounts of espresso as a break. It seems to me that leads both to less caffeine consumption and more actual enjoyment of the beverage.

Certainly not conclusive at all, but... Top results from a Google search:

> Individually, an American coffee drinker consumes about three cups of coffee per day.

> Italians drink an average of 3 coffees a day

It seems that the averages are roughly equal. Of course there are outliers everywhere.

Re: What “work” looks like

#183

Post by wrs »

scruple wrote: post #182
seti0Cha wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From what I've seen, Italian coffee consumption is nothing like American coffee consumption. They don't sip at enormous cups of drip coffee while working, but instead quickly drink small amounts of espresso as a break. It seems to me that leads both to less caffeine consumption and more actual enjoyment of the beverage.

Certainly not conclusive at all, but... Top results from a Google search: > Individually, an American coffee drinker consumes about three cups of coffee per day. > Italians drink an average of 3 coffees a day It seems that the averages are roughly equal. Of course there are outliers everywhere.

Presumably the American is having a cup of drip coffee (100mg caffeine) whereas the Italian is having a shot of espresso (60mg).

Re: What “work” looks like

#184

Post by matai_kolila »

Another reason Businesses love "collaboration" is that it has a much higher bus factor, so as much as we all love to "go dark", it's not predictable and therefore risky. Shitty but predictable work is often profitable, whereas great but unpredictable work is only sometimes profitable.

Ironically, isn't this basically the argument for why Business People play golf? That their jobs involve "big picture thinking" and that's hard to do in an office? I feel like I've heard that justification before.

Re: What “work” looks like

#185

Post by lkrubner »

lkrubner wrote: post #95
usrme wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I, personally, feel that instead of two it would need to be three to have a more diverse set of opinions and to break any stalemates. I've worked for many years with just one other person and the number of times where we had ideological differences and not enough exposure to alternatives are innumerable.

Yes, to be sure, I need to be more careful how I phrase this. I recently consulted with a VP of engineering who liked to bring 9 engineers together to review a database schema. I suggested more one-on-one meetings. He said, "Yes, I know you like less chefs in the kitchen." But that was not true, so I clarified with him: "I think it is great that you meet with those 9 engineers, but you should consider meeting with th…

For anyone interested, I did write a small book on the theme of personal connections and face-to-face communication, being more important than processes or tools:

https://www.amazon.com/meetings-underrated-Group-waste-time-...

Re: What “work” looks like

#186

Post by crazygringo »

MetaWhirledPeas wrote: post #171
crazygringo wrote: post #152

This is one of the most absurd, black-and-white things I've ever read. Does innovation come from running, showering, lying in bed? Absolutely, no question. But at the same time, when you get a diverse group of people to solve particular problems, they generally come up with far better solutions than any one of them would have on their own. Because these are really about two totally different types of problems. The fi…

> The obvious answer is that both are valuable. The idea that they are somehow at odds, or that only the first one is "work", is ludicrous. It's true that "individual contributor" jobs often fall more into the first category. But to denigrate the second category as "not work" is both disrespectful and, frankly, just idiotic. But let's be honest. Most mantras try to force all work into the "group collaboration" bucket…

> Most mantras try to force all work into the "group collaboration" bucket. If HR and other management-training groups value isolated work and individual contributions they sure don't show it. Literally every piece of training I've received about working effectively has been about collaboration.

I think that's because isolated/individual work is so obvious and default that there's nothing to train.

People know how to work alone. They often have to be actively encouraged to collaborate, however. HR isn't trying to force "all" work into collaboration, that's silly. But the right way to collaborate often isn't remotely obvious, when there are so many types of collaboration and so many different types of tasks/projects. So training makes sense and pays off here.

Re: What “work” looks like

#187

Post by kubota »

Test0129 wrote: post #16

I've had more ideas come to me after hiding in my office to take a nap than sitting at my desk. It got to be such a gold mine of solutions that I still to this day allocate 30 minutes of my day to a nap. Non-negotiable. So many hard problems that have been brought to me, or complicated needs for architecture, etc were solved by simply turning my active brain off. When I was in graduate school I'd regularly get stuck…

This! The human mind never fails to amaze me, so often the solution to a work problem pops into my head right after waking up, without even remembering what I was dreaming about.

Re: What “work” looks like

#188

Post by Izkata »

bstpierre wrote: post #97
lkrubner wrote: post #51

I strongly agree: "The mantra of sharing your work and involving everyone in decisions naturally leads to inviting and copying people into things that add no value to them, or you." Fred Brooks, in his book The Design Of Design, includes a section on "The Magic Power of Teams Of Two". In his opinion, large teams cannot get anything done, and most innovation comes from individuals, but Brooks feels that teams of two p…

It often feels like “teams” of 1.5 work really well. Basically this is one person doing the work, with one other person who is very much in the loop but not actually on the hook. The worker is getting the job done, and the consultant is offering ideas, questioning some decisions, reviewing WIP, and generally supporting the worker. Having been on both sides of this, I think that the little bit of distance that the con…

Once when two co-workers needed help with something I had more knowledge of, I sat between them so I could look over both of their laptops and jump in as needed. When a manager was confused about what was going on I called it "double-pairing" and got a funny look back.

Re: What “work” looks like

#189

Post by JJMcJ »

lkrubner wrote: post #51

I strongly agree: "The mantra of sharing your work and involving everyone in decisions naturally leads to inviting and copying people into things that add no value to them, or you." Fred Brooks, in his book The Design Of Design, includes a section on "The Magic Power of Teams Of Two". In his opinion, large teams cannot get anything done, and most innovation comes from individuals, but Brooks feels that teams of two p…

Not Brooks, but someone estimated productivity goes up about as the 0.7 power of team size.

Using that exponent, two people can do 1.6 times as much work as one person so each is about 80% as productive.

Ten people can do 5 times as much work as one person, so each is half as productive.

Twenty five people can do 9.5 times as much work, and each member is 38% as productive as single person.

Split those twenty five into five non-interacting teams of five people, and they can do 15.4 times as much work as one person.

Obviously real life isn't as precise as these formulas, but they provide some guidance.

This book https://www.microsoftpressstore.com/store/rapid-development-... has tables about the limits of what can be done. The biggest takeaway is that some projects simply can't be done faster than a certain way limit.

The only way around those limits is to find a way to reduce the size of the project. Either cut scope, or find a way to write less code, typically with a more powerful programming environment.

Re: What “work” looks like

#190

Post by JJMcJ »

vanderZwan wrote: post #106
bstpierre wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It often feels like “teams” of 1.5 work really well. Basically this is one person doing the work, with one other person who is very much in the loop but not actually on the hook. The worker is getting the job done, and the consultant is offering ideas, questioning some decisions, reviewing WIP, and generally supporting the worker. Having been on both sides of this, I think that the little bit of distance that the con…

I think you're onto something - I have a friend with whom I collaborate a lot where it feels like that. We're always working on our own thing, rarely on a truly shared project, so we're basically two "1.5 sized" teams. It's amazing

Someone, I can't remember who, wrote an article where he said that 1.5 is the optimum team size.
Post reply on HN