It’s more that we don’t yet “see” the work, in the sense that the client hasn’t contracted the work yet, but they will need it.
Yes, I agree. I’m not actually worried we won’t have work, by the way. But what is hard work is trying to find tickets for newcomers, given the current rules: max 50% internal, and even that’s not easy because those epics are in the back-burner for Serenity, at the moment. It puts a lot of pressure on core members, which are already stretched a little thin. Which is why I’m being conservative.
On the other hand, the recruitment effort so far has already improved things. Along with the fact Sid’s back, Serenity now has 2 more core members than in May. This will make it much easier to distribute the management load. If only one of Hadi and Hamza make it, I think we’ll be in a reasonably good spot.
The point is, as recruitment manager I want to understand what is the sweet spot in terms of risk of not having enough work/too much overhead, versus risk of having too much work/too little hands. We have a few bounds, already: 6 is too little (from June), and 12 is too much (from pre-Falcon split). My current hypothesis is that 9 is the sweet-spot ((6 + 12) / 2).
This brings up another point to discuss: once the sweet spot is reached, what happens? Do we turn down clients to remain in that sweet spot, and only hire when a core member leaves? How long do we remain in the sweet spot? Will a growth spurt be mandated (by you, presumably), and a cell split planned in advance? To be clear, this is exactly how I think it should be handled: growth beyond the sweet spot should be taken as an epic by somebody in the cell. Presumably by the recruitment manager. But the corresponding added work should be planned ahead, just like any other epic.
It’s definitely more long term than the yearly sustainability ratio, but it’s something important I think the cells and team members would want to help work towards?
I’ll always defer long-term strategy to you, Xavier. First, because it’s your job, but also because you’re much better at it than I am (I’ll never forget the Starcraft ass-beating I took, haha). In any case, I’m not disputing the long-term plan - I agree wholeheartedly. It is also why I took the containerization epic to begin with.
But something that I may not have made clear is how disheartening it was to have to stop working on it because of not only capacity, but sustainability. The current rules have it so that if a) a cell doesn’t have enough capacity, or b) not enough sustainability, it’s an uphill battle to work on not only internal, but accelerated epics. What the book tells us is that we should first achieve capacity (which we have done), then sustainability, and once you have that, you’ll have a 5% sustainability bonus to work on “cool” accelerated stuff.
Serenity is not, at the moment, in a position to want the long-term work, and as recruitment manager I’m just trying to play by the rules and help make sure we eventually are. If my reading of said rules is wrong, again, feel free to enlighten me. I’m still a relative newb. But if I’m right, and the long-term outcome is not as you imagined, then consider this my way of trying to get the rules changed. ;)
PS: we have a 121 later today, so I figure this is as good an opportuniy as any to sync up on this topic.
PPS: Tim and Daniel, I think it’s worth bringing you in here to keep me honest, as I’m speaking for the cell. :) Do my points above reflect reality? I may have missed some nuance.