This reminds me so much of my time at Adobe. I have never worked anywhere that had so many meetings. And if you couldn't get consensus in a small group meeting, the solution seemed to always be to add more people to the meeting. I had several hour-long meetings each week that had over a dozen people in them, some up to two dozen people. Heaven forbid, anyone made a decision on their own and actually got anything useful done!
Go to work for one of the Federal Reserve Banks. What a nightmare of incompetence and meetings. Several hour long meetings each week? Rephrase that as each day.
would it be fair to say this is an expression of 'large change = large risk' and 'lots of small changes = small risk'? trying to reduce risk leads to meetings, quality gates, extra testing etc, more people wanting to be involved/informed so they can prepare for the risk thing etc.
This reminds me so much of my time at Adobe. I have never worked anywhere that had so many meetings. And if you couldn't get consensus in a small group meeting, the solution seemed to always be to add more people to the meeting. I had several hour-long meetings each week that had over a dozen people in them, some up to two dozen people. Heaven forbid, anyone made a decision on their own and actually got anything useful done!
Go to work for one of the Federal Reserve Banks. What a nightmare of incompetence and meetings. Several hour long meetings each week? Rephrase that as each day.
would it be fair to say this is an expression of 'large change = large risk' and 'lots of small changes = small risk'? trying to reduce risk leads to meetings, quality gates, extra testing etc, more people wanting to be involved/informed so they can prepare for the risk thing etc.