Quote:
Originally Posted by Cory
Surely you don't believe this is true?
The great teams are pretty close to the upper limit on performance. They can't get that much better. Maybe 5-10%.
The pretty good teams can probably get a lot better. Most of them probably not quite to the level of the great teams, due to resources, mentors, design skill, etc, but pretty close.
40% of teams have no hope of ever getting anywhere near the great (or even pretty good) teams, IMO.
|
You said what I said. My question, poorly phrased, was "why is that inherently bad?"
I, for one, have added admiration for the greats because they were able to do so much in so little time. That separation, that parity, is what makes them incredible.
We're historically firmly entrenched in that 40%. We're graduating students, getting them scholarships, hooking them up with internships and work experiences, spreading the Gospel According to Dean, slowly but surely getting better as a team - I'm okay with being in the 40%. What I'm not okay with is making myself (more) exhausted, straining my relationships with my family, friends, career, and ask others on the team to do the same - just to maybe get to the bottom part of the 60%.
Our competitive limitations are not a direct result of the 6-week period. They're a result of a larger set of issues - ones we're working toward resolving.