The question is predicated on the argument that 'small is bad'. As stakeholders in the industry, and active participants in the community, it is our job to try and change any negative perception of small enterprises. We have to show examples of 'small is good', and be truthful.
It's not predicated on that. It's predicated on risk. I've been a buyer of software and the last thing I want to worry about is a guy gets hit by a bus (figuratively) and then I am stuck.
The irony being that the number of employees a company has is a poor proxy for answering that concern.
I think that at most large companies I've worked for (including my current one), there have been projects that had a key employee that would cause the project to screech to a halt if they got hit by a bus.
A project or a running product that I'm paying for?
For the purposes of discussion, I'll agree regardless. For every product I have ever bought, I'll gladly stick my head in the sand and assume the existing employees can take over in the event a person disappears. I can't do that if it's one person.
A project or a running product that I'm paying for?
My apologies for being unclear. I was using the terms as synonyms of each other. Every product is a project.
I'll gladly stick my head in the sand and assume the existing employees can take over in the event a person disappears.
My point is that this even in large companies, it's is far from unheard of that the entire product relies on a single individual's knowledge. If that individual were to go away, the product cannot be changed until someone else is able to come up to speed enough to replace that person. It's probably more likely to happen in a very small company, of course, but big or small, if it happens the effect is the same.
Yep, agree with this last part. For whatever reason (including irrational ones) it just feels less "in your face risky" than choosing an outside vendor who is a single person.
Comments
The question is predicated on the argument that 'small is bad'. As stakeholders in the industry, and active participants in the community, it is our job to try and change any negative perception of small enterprises. We have to show examples of 'small is good', and be truthful.
It's not predicated on that. It's predicated on risk. I've been a buyer of software and the last thing I want to worry about is a guy gets hit by a bus (figuratively) and then I am stuck.
The irony being that the number of employees a company has is a poor proxy for answering that concern.
I think that at most large companies I've worked for (including my current one), there have been projects that had a key employee that would cause the project to screech to a halt if they got hit by a bus.
A project or a running product that I'm paying for?
For the purposes of discussion, I'll agree regardless. For every product I have ever bought, I'll gladly stick my head in the sand and assume the existing employees can take over in the event a person disappears. I can't do that if it's one person.
My apologies for being unclear. I was using the terms as synonyms of each other. Every product is a project.
My point is that this even in large companies, it's is far from unheard of that the entire product relies on a single individual's knowledge. If that individual were to go away, the product cannot be changed until someone else is able to come up to speed enough to replace that person. It's probably more likely to happen in a very small company, of course, but big or small, if it happens the effect is the same.
Yep, agree with this last part. For whatever reason (including irrational ones) it just feels less "in your face risky" than choosing an outside vendor who is a single person.