I had an interesting experience the other day, in regards to being able to objectively compare the performance of work in a small team vs a large team, with many variables being kept the same.
So two projects (let’s call them “Big” and “Small”), both to do with designing icons for for digital products. I was the lead and wrote the brief for both projects, and I had the same designer execute.
Project Big was for a product that was backed by a large conglomerate and had input from the entire C-suite of executives, and even the board.
Project Small was for a product that I own, and nobody was going to approve anything, the result was just going to be accepted.
Please bear in mind, the same designer worked on both project, and project Small actually had more icons to design.
Project Big was completed in two and a half months, and ended up with a lovely set of icons, and everyone was happy. Value was delivered.
Project Small was completed in two and a half days, and ended up with a lovely set of icons, and everyone was happy. Value was delivered.
What do you think of that?
It’s a bit too easy to go…of course the way Project Small is setup is great, it was 30x faster, etc etc…
However, for certain types of business and goals, large amounts of capital and people are required, there is no “bootstrapping” option available.
And so, you trade money and time for very large goals, and so it’s not surprising that there are different results.
It’s not worse or better, just different.
The problem is when a Project Small behaves like a Project Big.
However, if you can make a Project Big work like a Project Small, then you’ve hit the jackpot.