Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

> To me, this implies a further disadvantage: extremely high latency when compared with in-person collaboration.

This is not an implication by all means.

Low-skilled not very well incentivized junior team (let's call it so in absence of better terms) needs more/most "in-person collaboration". Team of experts to whom the goals and the overall vision have been conveyed, who knows how to put it to practice, will give the shortest latency in async flows.

Don't take it as a personal attack, but people valuing high live discussions, are frequently those on the receiving end of it.




That's one thing that can happen, but it's not the only thing.

What you're describing is a push model. Somebody on high creates a vision and assigns goals. Workers are just seen turning that into outputs. It's a common way to work, especially in "known problem/known solution" projects, but it has its flaws. See Cutler on "feature factories", for example. Or Blank's "Four Steps to the Epiphany".

But what if the solution or perhaps the problem is unknown? Push systems don't work. Instead, I favor cross-functional teams that pursue outcomes (as opposed to outputs). In that context, the vision is a living thing, created collaboratively, as is the plan. Problems are explored, and solutions discovered. The speed at which a team can learn and test solutions is limited by communications latency.

And of course experts aren't born that way. Even if you're in a "known problem/known solution" space, sustainable companies need to find ways to turn novices into experts. Again, that's about learning, which does not work well in high-latency environments.


If that were true, why does every director/principal/VP/ceo spend almost the entire week in meetings?


The cynical take is that this is a rhetorical question.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: