On Nov 5, 2010, at 10:20 AM, lprefonta...@softaddicts.ca wrote: > Having expert people mastering several tools in any project increases the like > hood of being on time and within budget.
I agree partially. Given unlimited resources, it would be great for all the people on the project to have a mastery of all the tools used in the project. But resources are never unlimited, and therefore compromise is always necessary. I bet your organization was a small, focused team of experts -- a sharp tool for specific jobs -- not a large consulting organization with hundreds of employees and dozens of major projects. The primary point I was making was that each new technology introduces overhead in development, maintenance and operations. Therefore it should be included only if the benefit is compelling when compared to the change in costs associated with a team who can develop, maintain and operate a system that uses the technology. If a team like yours introduces a new technology, eventually the customer will have to maintain and operate it without your staff of top-notch experts to hold their hands. And I guess you guys weren't cheap in the first place. As they say, fast delivery, low cost, high quality -- pick any two. You were high quality and fast delivery. As far as failed projects go, in my experience, most failed projects fail not because the team is not good enough to deliver -- although this is possible -- but because of poor project leadership, poor executive support, requirements that shift too much, or disinterested or distant customers. These are essentially business reasons, not technical reasons. steven -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
