Some people have kind of already covered this (by mentioning the "quality of the work during the season," for example):
Most people have been talking about the less obvious reasons why teams fail, such as poor time management and poor strategy. There is one obvious reason why teams lose that few people have mentioned (although I don't think many people overlooked it - maybe it just seemed too obvious to say) and that is a lack of technical expertise, money, mentors and other "resources."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Karthik
- A failure to honestly and realistically evaluate one's resources (resources in this context are defined as time, experience, fabrication abilities and money), thus making you think you're capable of doing more than you can do.
|
A few others in this thread have a different idea of what losing is (they think only the top few teams win, and everyone else loses, while Karthik says performing at an average level isn't losing).
If not winning is considered losing, then having a good strategy, making good decisions and realistically estimating one's resources are not enough to avoid losing. You actually have to have the resources (most of the time). This is nothing groundbreaking, but no one so far has given reasons why helping teams improve their decision-making, strategy, etc. is more effective than helping them get more resources or advising them on how to do so.
...so I guess I'm actually asking a question - is it better to help teams get resources, or to help them improve in other ways? I honestly don't know.