Tony Wright

Before I got involved with product development a few years ago, my entire career was spent owning and running a small (10-20) person web app consulting firm. Clients (ranging from mom-and-pop operations to Fortune 100 megacorps) would come to me with a problem and I would assemble a team to solve that problem with some sort of web application. 99% of the time, the size of that team was somewhere between 1 and 4 consultants.

When I started a little Web 2.0 company, it seemed natural to keep the team to 2 people, with me doing some design, PR, marketing, and biz related stuff, and Brian doing the assorted geekery required to make a web app go (server and client side coding and a bit o’ sysadmin work).

When our little company got bought by Jobster and we relocated to Seattle, one of the things that truly blew me away was the SIZE of the product development operation at what most Jobsterites felt was a lean operation. There were literally dozens of developers, a few designers, a mess of program managers, and a small army of offshore QA folks. I don’t have the exact count, but I think that somewhere in the neighborhood of 35 people could honestly say, “My job is to build software” at Jobster.

So why the discrepancy? The little teams that I had worked on for most of my life weren’t solving tiny problems. Sure, we had an occasional brochure-ware client, but a big slice of our time was build applications that were pretty darn complex and sophisticated. There are two very legitimate reasons that software teams get big:

• First off, some web software is just big/complex/ugly… and it has to be. Enterprise software tends to be bigger, more complex, and have lots of integration points which get pretty complicated. The “two guys in a garage” theory doesn’t really work for such things. The more I play in the world of web development, the more adamant I am about not wanted to play in the world of “big” software. Big projects might have merit, but they are certainly a helluva lot less fun.
• Some teams are really a bunch of smaller teams working on different things. Jobster was (and is!) definitely engaged in several different initiatives. So the team of 35 people were really (depending on how you slice it) working on two or three very different problems.

Unfortunately, the list of reasons for team bloat goes on and it gets pretty ugly (note: some of these are paraphrased from Parkinson’s Law)

• People make work for each other. Certain people are REALLY good at creating LOTS of work for other people. Some of this work is valuable and productive, but much of it (excess documentation, “here’s what I’m up to” meetings, etc) is not.
• The amount of work on a team ebbs and flows. Sometimes there’s a ton of work, and an undisciplined (or over-funded) team will seek to get bigger rather than just suffering through the peaks.
• People like subordinates. Oftentimes, a manager is measured by the size of their team. Bigger teams mean bigger budgets and more responsibility, and that looks good on a resume.
• Work, like water, spreads out and seeks to fill the nooks and crannies of an organization. If a 10 hour task for one person spreads around to involve 4 other people, it’s likely that the manpower spent on the task will explode to something well beyond 10 hours.
• An individual’s tasks will expand to fill the time alloted to accomplish them. This seems like the other side of the “necessity is the motherhood of invention” truism. In the times where people have more time than they need to accomplish a task, they’ll find a way to stretch it out. This includes surfing the web or (much more dangerous) adding complexity/oversight to the processes involved in completing the task (creating a longer term “bloat”).
• Communication paths grow exponentially with the size of the organization. With two people, there is exactly two possible communication directions. With a team of 10 people I have 9 other people that I have to communicate with (and who have to communicate with me). This dramatically increases the chance of miscommunication, confusion, excessive questions/clarifications, and (everyone’s favorite) office politics.
• Low quality team members can hide in the herd. If a team member loses their motivation in a two person team, it becomes pretty evident pretty quickly. On large teams, low-productivity members can lurk for months without any problems.

Of course, there is some value in larger teams. And, in my opinion, there is simply HUGE value in growing your team from 1 to 2. Two brains are most certainly more than twice as sharp as one. Beyond a team of two or three, however, I think that the added manpower offers asymptotically diminishing returns. While I truly believe in the Wisdom of Crowds, I think the best way to harness this wisdom in software development is by collecting thoughts and opinions in a one-off kind of way (usability tests, focus groups, consultants and the cheaper alternatives of asking peers, friends and family for their opinions).

(this post is prompted by 3 things. One, a friend of mine just dramatically shifted strategy on his 2-person startup… for the better. Two, Jobster is dealing with these challenges– and dealing with them reasonably well. Three, I just read some related thoughts on Andy Sack’s blog.)

My advice is this: If you’re going to scrutinize your startup idea, do it early and do it often.

Starting up a company is (as I’ve said before), pretty much laying down a bet on a hypothesis. As many startups learn, their hypothesis might be just plain wrong. Or perhaps their hypothesis isn’t nearly right enough to to justify the time, effort and/or funding that has gone into it.

So it’s time to punt on your idea and go with another one. This is one (if not the only) true advantage that a startup has over larger and better-funded competitors– the flexibility to change strategy and tactics at the drop of a hat.

The thing about shifting your idea in a new direction (whether it’s a big shift or a small one) is that it gets exponentially more difficult to do as your idea and company ages. Here are a few reasons that shifting is hard in a mature company:

-Codebase. Codebases have momentum, and they don’t often go away (or go in a different direction) without a fight. It’s oftentimes a lot easier to build something new than it is to shift a codebase in a new direction, but development teams are often loathe to give away their hard-won coding victories.

-People. People get passionate about ideas. The more people you have and longer you’ve pursued a given idea, the more likely you are to have someone importantly vehemently opposing going in a different direction. In short, any shift generally results in SOMEONE having their feelings hurt.

-Customers/Audience. Just because your product isn’t as world-changing as you need/want it to be doesn’t mean that you don’t have loyal and happy customers. If you’re going to shift direction, what do you do with your customers? How are they going to feel when your focus is (at least partially) shifted in a new direction?

-Investors. Investors and other shareholders know darn well that shifting strategy is ALWAYS expensive, even if it’s a relatively small shift. The more you’ve sunk effort, time, and cash into an idea, the more people will tend advocate for a “stay the course” attitude (even though it’s sunk costs).

-Cruft. Cruft is all the crap that your company accumulates that makes it go slower. It’s a database server that acts up from time to time. It’s a middle manager that schedules lots of meetings that never seem to lead anywhere. It’s slapdash code that a developer whips out and promises himself that he’ll fix down the road. It’s old hardware and old Windows installs that start misbehaving. Every day that passes, a little more cruft gets introduced that gums up the works.

All of these reasons get a heckuva lot more painful as a company gets bigger and older.

At Jobster, we’ve recently shifted our strategy in some new (and amazingly cool) direcions. Our attention is split between a few initiatives (which, in itself, is a challenge). While I think we’re moving forward at a brisk pace, I can’t help but ask myself “What if we started moving in this direction 2 years ago?” I’ve only been with the company for 10 months, but I tend to feel that the only thing keeping us from finding our muse earlier was a dogmatic attachment to the correctness of own ideas. We should have been more critical. We should have asked more questions.

We’re not alone in this.

Andy Sack, one of my favorite bloggers and CEO of Judy’s Book, has recently been blogging about his experience shifting his company from an online user-generated-review site to a local affiliate/shopping site (here’s his first post, here’s a longer and more interesting followup). Andy’s company is also about 3 years old and he seems to be experiencing similar challenges (and a few of the same frustrations) that come out of shifting late-in-the-game.

I’m sure Andy is wondering the same thing with the same 20/20 hindsight that I am.

“What if we’d shifted our strategy in this direction in our first week? Our first month? Heck, our first YEAR?”