Crypto and gaming projects
Provoked to think about the similarities between crypto and gaming projects, I got on the tangent nicely to conclude a nice sunny Thurswinterday.
I’ve only been ever involved in small game projects on the producer side. From the management and technical development policy perspectives I consider them nearly similar to small crypto projects like FIMK. I guess it’s the same regardless of the project type: things get progressively different when the number of participants in the project grows. With a two-man development project you can still use most of the same tactics as working alone, but not as effectively as alone.
Let’s use some crude imaginary figures to play out a rough model how dramatically the individual and total performance effectiveness is affected by the number of people involved in a project, and the mode of operation (project coordination). There are certainly large individual differences, but as a general example model of our completely unrealistic normative human operator we could perhaps use the following simplified scheme.
We could state that without changing your working methods, a two man operation can achieve total efficiency level of about 130% to 150% of what you can achieve alone when working on a good fluent 100% productivity level. That means approx. 60%-80% output individually as compared to working alone. The waste arises from overlap of efforts and time required for coordination.
With skilled coordination 200%+ effectiveness could be achieved. I’d suppose the ceiling for anything but the greatest small teams is around 300% consistent efficiency. That means three times the performance of a fluent one man operation with just the addition of one other operator.
When a third participant joins the team the figures get to a whole different level. Sub 20% individual performance in average could easily result if any difficulty in matching the personal working traits of the individuals is encountered. That means the team as whole gets done barely half that of a single productive person alone. OTOH, when these obstacles are resolved, it’s fairly easy to bring the productivity up to 300%+.
And so on. I can only venture vague estimates about the most effective average number of people involved in a technical development project. I’d say it’s low, likely below 20. The larger the system the more friction and inertia it produces, resulting in waste and requiring ever higher standard of coordination and optimization. Yes, game companies of 100 people may get 50 man-years of productive work done in a year. That’s still 5000% individual 100-percent productivity, but it’s only 50% efficiency.
Personally, an immediately visible difference in a crypto project when compared to game projects or many other small business projects, is of course related to the social aspect – the community nature of crypto. With FIMK my intention has always been to leverage some of the previously unavailable (for crypto) business project dynamics to the advantage of a community project.
That strategy has been emanated by twin objectives; It has not only been necessary because of the legislative, distributive and promotional issues governing the potential success of a project like this in the Finnish public mindset, but also by design to bring out the chance of competitive advantage against your standard altcoin, and when optimized also against the stronger community driven challengers. It sure is a bumpy road to be able to harvest any fruit of that strategy, the hardships manifesting themselves here and there with the community quivering and convulsing out of the side effects of central signalling every now and then. However I firmly believe the difference eventually makes a big difference, paying off for all the pain.