it'd be interesting to hear people talk about their experience with how firms will staff up and staff down their projects.
it seems that at large firms there is a lot of risk in staffing up a huge project. if you throw 30 people on to something and then the process stops for whatever reason, firms have a difficult time knowing what to do.
it seems at smaller firms they have an easier time keeping people on multiple projects since the projects tend to be smaller
We have about two or three people who are in charge of staffing. All three of them are senior associates. But among them one main person handles all of the staffing issues and problems. Apparently he was brought into the firm for this reason. Let's just say I'm glad he's the one who deals with it. Because I have no idea how he does it.
However, I'm currently working on a large project in which I wish I had more people giving me a hand. Right now, it's just me and the PM. I would love to have a PA involved.
for us it's a constant conversation: who do we need next? when do we need them? can we commit to them long-term? if not, do we really need them? can we use contract help?
My experience has been that my old, much larger firm would regularly hire and fire related to the projects they had. Sometimes they would let 3 or 4 people go and then only a couple months later hire 4 or 5 more, simply because they landed a new job.
Currently I am with a much smaller firm and I feel very secure in that we do very little hiring, no firing and general maintain a very consistent size.
On a related note, don't you sometimes feel like the additional bodies on a project wind up not being help at all, but just a hinderence? I'm sure it depends on the project and who the new people are, but I'm just saying, extra people aren't always extra help.
A semi famous software designer put it in the follow manner "Adding manpower to a late software project makes it later." or his more clever version "The delivery of a baby always takes 9 months, no matter how many women are assigned". I picked that one up on a radio show recently, though I can't remember which.
why does it always have to be about the "big" firms?
No, seriously?
Our company as a whole (1200+), tries very hard not to hire/fire (this cost alot of money, and it not efficient)
We handle staffing as best we can with short term and long term projections. Given todays' market (Miami, FL) we have had times of very light and very heavy loads. Most employees are aware of the situation out there, and rather put in a little extra time when needed, as oposed to overstaffing and having lay-offs. We have recently had several staff leave (relocating for personal reasons, or career shift). The difficult part is having projects in the office which can support (with fee) large teams in order to rapidly shift focus in case one project slows/goes on hold indefinitely. We will occasionally overstaff one project to complete early...with the hope that projects start or continue.
As Steven mentioned, we also have a handful of "contract" persons who we can tap in case of a crunch. Works for both parties, and there is no real burden on staffing. Project is done, and they are done.
There really isn't a science in todays economy...Oh, I remember a few years ago where we turned down RFP after RFP because we were too busy...
I think you are right about the cost of hiring and firing, and yet I've seen it done routinely at some firms, very bizarre.
In my experience with a larger firm, there was less connection between management and the rest of the employees and things generally ran in typical corporate fashion. At my smaller firm, things are run much more like a family. I am sure there are many exceptions to this situation, but it makes perfect sense to me that, in general, as you increase in size, things are going to become less personal and more "business" like.
For me, the big firm wasn't the right fit, but another person might look at it and get excited about the possibilities, perhaps seeing all the room for advancement in the future, which sometimes is impossible at smaller firms.
my firm of 1000+ has a single board of directors and such but ownership is relatively dispersed through out the offices and each office is allowed to manage its own hiring and personnel issues...then from that point each studio in each office is generally allowed to have a good bit of control over its own hiring practices and staffing issues...
so you end up with many 15-25 person studios working out their needs for themselves and with the help of the other studios in their office or in another office...
for example i'm in about a 18 person 'science and technology' studio in PA but my main project is with the sci-tech studio in our DC office as well as regularly helping out our healthcare studio here at home...
its a relatively casual arrangement but the right people from each studio and office regularly talk to one another to make sure we are balanced...
we have also significantly expanded our international presence in the last few years which has helped offset any staffing issues either by making the US offices a relief valve for overseas work or using some of the cheaper labor rates abroad to quickly offset a need for a US project
wow, those are some big firms! for a frame of reference for my comment, then, we're a firm of 12 and every hire is critical - whether to the positive or negative.
I'm used to a process where the PA's make requests for help in weekly or monthly status meetings with management. Based on these requests people get assiged to certian projects. While a number of tech's might stay with a project begining to end, several others might come in mid-way to help in the deadline push. When times are slower the number of "floaters" might rise, but aren't let go because inevitably they'll be needed at crunch time sooner than later. Busy times there might be few to no "floaters" available and people are pulled from other projects onto the high priority jobs. This isn't ideal, but at least I've never seen layoffs based on the rise & fall of a single project.
all I can say is make sure there is consistency of staff across the life of the project - even with production people - both in small and large offices.
when I worked in an office of around 15 people, the staffing almost magically worked itself out. They did think long and hard before hiring someone new, but still managed to never let the workload get too out of control for anyone. Then when things slackened, they just waited for someone to quit for whatever reason (angry at boss, going to grad school, moving to a new city, whatever) and just didn't replace them until projects picked back up again.
how staffing is handled at firms
it'd be interesting to hear people talk about their experience with how firms will staff up and staff down their projects.
it seems that at large firms there is a lot of risk in staffing up a huge project. if you throw 30 people on to something and then the process stops for whatever reason, firms have a difficult time knowing what to do.
it seems at smaller firms they have an easier time keeping people on multiple projects since the projects tend to be smaller
We have about two or three people who are in charge of staffing. All three of them are senior associates. But among them one main person handles all of the staffing issues and problems. Apparently he was brought into the firm for this reason. Let's just say I'm glad he's the one who deals with it. Because I have no idea how he does it.
However, I'm currently working on a large project in which I wish I had more people giving me a hand. Right now, it's just me and the PM. I would love to have a PA involved.
for us it's a constant conversation: who do we need next? when do we need them? can we commit to them long-term? if not, do we really need them? can we use contract help?
over and over and over.
My experience has been that my old, much larger firm would regularly hire and fire related to the projects they had. Sometimes they would let 3 or 4 people go and then only a couple months later hire 4 or 5 more, simply because they landed a new job.
Currently I am with a much smaller firm and I feel very secure in that we do very little hiring, no firing and general maintain a very consistent size.
On a related note, don't you sometimes feel like the additional bodies on a project wind up not being help at all, but just a hinderence? I'm sure it depends on the project and who the new people are, but I'm just saying, extra people aren't always extra help.
A semi famous software designer put it in the follow manner "Adding manpower to a late software project makes it later." or his more clever version "The delivery of a baby always takes 9 months, no matter how many women are assigned". I picked that one up on a radio show recently, though I can't remember which.
why does it always have to be about the "big" firms?
No, seriously?
Our company as a whole (1200+), tries very hard not to hire/fire (this cost alot of money, and it not efficient)
We handle staffing as best we can with short term and long term projections. Given todays' market (Miami, FL) we have had times of very light and very heavy loads. Most employees are aware of the situation out there, and rather put in a little extra time when needed, as oposed to overstaffing and having lay-offs. We have recently had several staff leave (relocating for personal reasons, or career shift). The difficult part is having projects in the office which can support (with fee) large teams in order to rapidly shift focus in case one project slows/goes on hold indefinitely. We will occasionally overstaff one project to complete early...with the hope that projects start or continue.
As Steven mentioned, we also have a handful of "contract" persons who we can tap in case of a crunch. Works for both parties, and there is no real burden on staffing. Project is done, and they are done.
There really isn't a science in todays economy...Oh, I remember a few years ago where we turned down RFP after RFP because we were too busy...
J3,
I think you are right about the cost of hiring and firing, and yet I've seen it done routinely at some firms, very bizarre.
In my experience with a larger firm, there was less connection between management and the rest of the employees and things generally ran in typical corporate fashion. At my smaller firm, things are run much more like a family. I am sure there are many exceptions to this situation, but it makes perfect sense to me that, in general, as you increase in size, things are going to become less personal and more "business" like.
For me, the big firm wasn't the right fit, but another person might look at it and get excited about the possibilities, perhaps seeing all the room for advancement in the future, which sometimes is impossible at smaller firms.
my firm of 1000+ has a single board of directors and such but ownership is relatively dispersed through out the offices and each office is allowed to manage its own hiring and personnel issues...then from that point each studio in each office is generally allowed to have a good bit of control over its own hiring practices and staffing issues...
so you end up with many 15-25 person studios working out their needs for themselves and with the help of the other studios in their office or in another office...
for example i'm in about a 18 person 'science and technology' studio in PA but my main project is with the sci-tech studio in our DC office as well as regularly helping out our healthcare studio here at home...
its a relatively casual arrangement but the right people from each studio and office regularly talk to one another to make sure we are balanced...
we have also significantly expanded our international presence in the last few years which has helped offset any staffing issues either by making the US offices a relief valve for overseas work or using some of the cheaper labor rates abroad to quickly offset a need for a US project
wow, those are some big firms! for a frame of reference for my comment, then, we're a firm of 12 and every hire is critical - whether to the positive or negative.
I'm used to a process where the PA's make requests for help in weekly or monthly status meetings with management. Based on these requests people get assiged to certian projects. While a number of tech's might stay with a project begining to end, several others might come in mid-way to help in the deadline push. When times are slower the number of "floaters" might rise, but aren't let go because inevitably they'll be needed at crunch time sooner than later. Busy times there might be few to no "floaters" available and people are pulled from other projects onto the high priority jobs. This isn't ideal, but at least I've never seen layoffs based on the rise & fall of a single project.
all I can say is make sure there is consistency of staff across the life of the project - even with production people - both in small and large offices.
when I worked in an office of around 15 people, the staffing almost magically worked itself out. They did think long and hard before hiring someone new, but still managed to never let the workload get too out of control for anyone. Then when things slackened, they just waited for someone to quit for whatever reason (angry at boss, going to grad school, moving to a new city, whatever) and just didn't replace them until projects picked back up again.
rationalist, from my experience i expect that 'magic' caused some gray hair for the management.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.