
Why Crunch Mode Doesn't Work (2005) - support_ribbons
http://legacy.igda.org/why-crunch-modes-doesnt-work-six-lessons
======
redthrowaway
The critiques I've seen of crunch mode always seem to assume that it's a
normal state of affairs, and thus leads inexorably to burnout. We'll have
maybe one or two weeks of crunch every quarter or so when we have a major
release that everyone needs to coordinate on and no one wants to be blamed for
holding up. For those one or two weeks out of twelve, we'll work sixty or
_maybe_ seventy hours. It's absolutely effective, and while I've felt tired at
the end of it I've never felt burned out. It's also offset by having very
relaxed working hours the rest of the time.

I get that some firms see the productivity boost that happens during crunch
mode and try to make that the new normal, but is this even that common? Do
most firms not do as mine does and just crunch when you need to and have
normal hours the rest of the time?

~~~
usefulcat
I used to work for a major game company on a major title that had a new
release each year around the same time of year. Every year, for approximately
3-4 months prior the release of the game, the team would work 10-12 hours per
day, 6-7 days per week. As far as I could tell, no one else considered this
unusual.

~~~
munificent
I, too, worked for EA on sports titles.

Superman Returns was worse: 9 months of 60+ hour, 6 days a week crunch.

~~~
sitkack
Did you see a super huge payback on those hours or was it just life force
draining from your shell?

~~~
munificent
Well, the game tanked, we didn't get huge bonuses and next to no comp time
so... mostly just drained life force.

It was a technically challenging project, though, and I learned a lot on it.

------
ehurrell
Worth reiterating, I've seen good people run themselves into the ground with
an endless 'crunch', because they felt it was a valid strategy. 'Running
themselves into the ground' might seem wishy-washy, but to make it more
concrete: people have _had to_ take time off work days before a big deadline
because they couldn't work. I'd rather the marathon than the brick-wall
crunch.

------
bsmith
I wonder if the science on the 40-hour work week applies mostly to specialized
jobs, or if it can be broadly applied to more generalized roles, i.e.
_entrepreneur_, where one switches contexts several times per day/week. How
many 'successful' startup founders only worked about 40 hours a week versus
60+? Is Elon deluding himself when he claims his 100+ hour weeks allow him to
accomplish more than his less-disciplined competitors?

~~~
rubinelli
I can't comment on context switching, but one thing to keep in mind is that 40
hours is the peak of a bell curve. That implies that some individuals can in
fact work 50, 60-hour weeks for months without a significant drop in
productivity, and some probably shouldn't work more than 4 days a week. Maybe
Elon Musk is the one-in-a-billion guy that can actually stay productive for
100+ hours, but thinking that's reason for you working 50+ hours is like
saying you should be able to swim 100m in 70 seconds because they do it in
less than 50 in the Olympics.

~~~
hawkice
Or, to add in the more specifically measured element:

40 hours is the peak of the Laffer curve [productivity being inversely
proportional to hours worked a week]. I have absolutely no data on variance
for the peak of the Laffer curve (if you imagine attempting to gather this
data, you'll notice it is extremely difficult). That being said, despite this
lack of data, I have heard a lot of people claiming they can work a whole lot
more and get more and more done. I do not believe their ad hoc methods have
secretly outsmarted science. It seems more likely that they are mistaken (if
only for the reason that it is very hard to measure and they universally lack
specific reason to choose "my peak productivity happens at >60 hours a week"
over "the volume of my work is more noticeable than the quality of my work",
which is essentially universal -- but lines of code, as a metric, don't pay
the bills).

------
thathonkey
That's why other industries don't do "crunch mode." Can you imagine:

"We're really behind on building this bridge" "CRUNCH MODE!"

~~~
sgift
The usual solution in bridge building is: "MORE PEOPLE!" ... but that doesn't
work in software (because of training time, less productivity in the meantime
and so on, you know the drill), so we don't have that option. The best idea
would be to accept that it will take longer, but that fails flat for political
reasons. Bad situation.

~~~
k__
I got the impression, that most people are aware, that there is only a
finished software or a date, even if they are non-technical.

They got something, even if it's bug-ridden, which they can show and sell
someone. And the fixes can be made between the "finish date" and the "first
real use". The software that is ready after the finish date just has to work
for presentations.

------
shubb
The finance industry, particularly around the front desk, is notorious for
freakishly long working hours. I don't work in that industry, but friends that
do speak of 100+ hour work weeks, with 80 hours considered normal in some
workplaces.

As outlined in the post, that way of working, doesn't (shouldn't) work.
Especially when the code produced, or in the case of traders decisions made,
might lose vast amounts of money due to a single mistake.

I'm curious, if anyone here works in that kind of an environment - How does
this work? Are these numbers exaggerated? Are you all on stimulants? Do you
see the kind of creeping errors and codebase decay one might expect?

~~~
barrkel
AFAIK it's more about signalling - demonstrating commitment to your peers and
superiors.

Not in that industry, but working at a startup founded by two ex banking
(albeit software) guys. A little bit of the culture has come along for the
ride.

~~~
jarek
Absolutely - finance uses hours the same way software uses open-source
projects created in your spare time. "Passion", "culture fit", etc

------
nakovet
It may seen silly but the article could use a brief description of what's
"crunch mode" since it was a new term to me.

Google: define:crunch mode > "Crunch mode", also referred to as "crunch time,"
is the term used by those in the software development industry to describe
working extra hours for extended periods of time in order to finish a project
or meet a deadline.

------
themartorana
New title - "Why CONTINUOUS crunch mode doesn't work."

This feels a bit link-baity, because it says nothing of how short, uncommonly
used crunch modes help or hurt productivity - just how super-long work weeks
are eventually more detrimental than helpful.

Edit: I would posit that short bursts of overtime - perhaps a single 60-80
hour week at the ramp up to a major release can actually be helpful if not
exciting - if used quite sparingly. Research on that theory would be more
interesting to me.

~~~
watwut
Short bursts of overtime is not crunch. Crunch is by definition long term.

Anyway, I recall that you can actually raise short term productivity for up to
four weeks or so, but expect lower output following weeks. The productivity
falls if crunch runs longer then six weeks. Not sure about in between. That
was just one study, so take it or leave it.

Last note: if you have 60-80 hour work weeks before every major release, then
there is something wrong with your planning or process. In any case, it does
not sounds like the release will be much tested before shipment.

~~~
sitkack
Crunch is longer than usual work with a looming deadline. Crunch doesn't have
to be long term. Crunch can be working for 7 hrs seeing you are going to make
your goal and busting ass for 3 more hours. The slope should match up with the
expected outcome, mx+b or else it is futile and not crunch. Crunch should be
"doable". What the author was describing is a death-march. The goal isn't to
arrive at a location but to kill as many people as possible in the journey.
Ref, trail of tears.

------
dsirijus
The most important bit missed here is - what exactly are you doing?

I started as a physical worker, and when I switched to computers, coming back
to physical work felt like taking a holiday.

Now when I'm actively managing people and finances, having a 3-day code crunch
is my definition of a walk in the sunshine. Sometimes I literally can't stop
smiling during that period, it's such a relief.

------
danielweber
(From 2005)

~~~
tbrownaw
So? Do you have something (newer) arguing reasonably well that it's wrong?

~~~
jarek
I read that as a reminder that this isn't a new article but rather the older
one some of it might have read before. It's fair enough to submit it since
some might not have read it though.

HN has gotten in the habit of adding year of publication to submission titles
for pre-2014 content recently and this one should probably get it as well.

~~~
danielweber
Yeah, I just thought the title should be updated with that. ea_spouse was
still considered current events, but the fact that this stuff from 2005 reads
the same today just shows how timeless this research is.

I did seem to have struck a nerve with that comment. In the future I should be
explicit that I'm just asking for a title update.

------
malkia
The real problem is that crunch actually works.

~~~
normloman
You read a whole article full of evidence to the contrary, and you think you
can wave it away by just ignoring it?

~~~
malkia
I've read it long time ago. I've been in this industry for a long time, and
unfortunately crunch does work. I can't say whether for everyone, but it
works. It's not question whether I like it, whether its good for the people,
families, etc.

But it works!

~~~
maccard
Where did you read it? All the research and evidence points to the fact that
crunches don't work. Overtime (60hr week for two weeks) is different, but
extended overtime periods do not work. If you have any citations other than
anecdotal evidence, please share with the rest of us

