The Engineering Overflow theorem

In the fast-paced world of IT and software development, there’s a pervasive belief that throwing more engineers at a problem will result in a faster and more efficient solution. As companies scale, they often assume that adding more engineers to a project will lead to increased productivity and better outcomes. Investors and executives may even pressure engineering teams to grow rapidly, believing that more engineers will lead to more success, faster growth, and higher profits.

However, this is often not the reality. In this blog post, we’ll explore the underlying theorem that challenges this common belief: The Engineering Overflow theorem.

The Engineering Overflow theorem:

Given 100 engineers working on a 10 engineers workload, all they are gonna do is make that workload fit a 100 engineers team. Not do the work better, not do it faster.

To put it bluntly, if you have a task that typically requires 10 skilled engineers, adding 90 more won’t magically complete the job ten times faster or with ten times the quality. Instead, it’s likely to turn the task into a massive, unwieldy project that requires extensive coordination and management, especially if the added workforce is not selected with a high threshold of skill and experience.

The causes

Communication overheads:

As the size of a team grows, so does the complexity of communication. More people means more meetings, emails, and coordination efforts, all of which take time away from actual development.

Divergent approaches:

With a large team, engineers may have differing opinions on the best approach to solving a problem. This can lead to lengthy debates and, in some cases, parallel development efforts that can actually slow progress.

Diminished ownership and accountability:

In a large team, individual accountability can become diluted. Engineers may feel less personally responsible for the outcome, leading to potential quality and productivity issues.

Bigger teams need (more) management:

As the size of a team grows, so does the need for management. This can lead to a situation where a large portion of the team is focused on managing the project, rather than actually working on it.

Organisms fight for survival:

People, teams, and organizations are all organisms that live inside a larger ecosystem. In this ecosystem, they have a natural tendency to fight for survival, not unlike animals, plants, and other organisms in the natural world.

In a totally natural and seamless way, teams become a self-sustaining organism that is focused on its own survival, rather than the success of the project. When a team grows, it may begin to compete with other teams for resources, recognition, and funding. This can lead to internal politics and inefficiencies that can slow progress, adding layers of bureaucracy and management that can further slow progress.

Closing words

In the world of software development, bigger isn’t always better. The Law of Diminishing Returns in Engineering reminds us that blindly adding more engineers to a project can lead to inefficiencies and decreased productivity. By carefully considering the skillsets of your team members, implementing effective project management practices, and fostering a culture of collaboration, you can ensure that your engineering efforts are focused and efficient, leading to successful project outcomes.