Steve McConnell

Do you have any empirical evidence to back up your theory, or is it all supposition?

If it's the latter, and I assume it is, why do you present your hypothesis as if it's already fact?

Second, why do you assume that 50% less work is such a big deal? Even assuming you're right, productivity depends on many other factors that influence the result, and I'd claim by a heck of a lot more than 50%.

The theory I personally subscribe to is that the single most important factor for any software company is getting the right people. There is some empirical evidence[1] to support this hypothesis. If I'm correct, then what a company should care about is attracting and retaining talent.

So even if you assume people can work long hours without burning out, and that there's no productivity loss in doing so (and I'm pretty sure I've seen evidence to suggest otherwise), the numbers aren't on your side if your competition has all the talent because they offer a better work-week.

And even if your team is more productive, it doesn't help you if your competition builds a simpler, but more commercially successful product, because they're smarter. Just because something is harder to build doesn't automatically mean it's more profitable.

[1]: http://forums.construx.com/blogs/stevemcc/archive/2011/01/09/origins-of-10x-how-valid-is-the-underlying-research.aspx

"I'm not sure I follow you in the above sentence."

I'm saying that if one is going to attack someone personally for dishonesty, as opposed to critiquing the state of the field in general, the bar for that is high and one had better be more than careful with one's own particulars. Reasonable people can interpret this stuff differently. The post linked to upthread [1] didn't strike me as dishonest (though of course it's only one side).

I'm glad you've been looking for solid ground in the swamp and finding it swampy. I think that's valuable. What bothers me are the hints in the OP, comments here, and elsewhere I've seen (including people talking about your work) that this is about one guy making shit up when in reality the problem is endemic to the entire field. Unless he's been egregiously dishonest, which I doubt, it's a distraction.

On another note, you seem like a good person to ask: is there any finding in the software engineering literature that you think holds up? i.e. have you found any solid ground in the swamp? I'm not sure I have (but I haven't looked nearly as hard as you). If there really isn't anything, that alone is kind of shocking.

[1] http://forums.construx.com/blogs/stevemcc/archive/2011/01/09/origins-of-10x-how-valid-is-the-underlying-research.aspx

That page gives an overview over the (dead tree) literature on the topic:
http://forums.construx.com/blogs/stevemcc/archive/2008/03/27/productivity-variations-among-software-developers-and-teams-the-origin-of-quot-10x-quot.aspx

An interesting data point he cites is the comparision between Lotus 123 version 3 and Excel 3.0: "Excel took 50 staff years to produce 649,000 lines of code. Lotus 123 took 260 staff years to produce 400,000 lines of code. [...] The difference in productivity between the two teams was more than a factor of 8."
But then it will probably not be too difficult to find people who will tell you that 123 was still the better product.

[Edit: Another important point is that the these factors are between the best and the worst. The difference between the best and the median can be considerably smaller, so it is not that surprising not to see any programmers paid ten times the average.]

I think every previous study of this topic has determined that the best programmers are those that can keep more layers of abstractions in their heads (I'll add a citation when/if I find it).

For me, there are days of brilliance and days of complete distraction. I won't call myself a 10xer but I think much of my success has come because I truly love what I do.

EDIT - I couldn't find a reference to the study I was remembering, but Steve McConnell of "Code Complete" fame has written a blog post describing how flawed the studies he's reviewed have been - http://forums.construx.com/blogs/stevemcc/archive/2011/01/09/origins-of-10x-how-valid-is-the-underlying-research.aspx. There are links to a lot of interesting sources and he clearly isn't arguing against the idea of dramatic differences in programmer ability ... just sayin'.

"The fact that no studies have produced findings that contradict the 10x claim provides even more confidence in the 10x claim. When I consider the number of studies that have been done, in aggregate I find the research to be not only suggestive, but conclusive—which is rare in software engineering research." Steve McConnell http://forums.construx.com/blogs/stevemcc/archive/2011/01/09/origins-of-10x-how-valid-is-the-underlying-research.aspx http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4117417

Steve McConnell revisited this subject recently: http://forums.construx.com/blogs/stevemcc/archive/2011/01/22/10x-productivity-myths-where-s-the-10x-difference-in-compensation.aspx

I think about myth #1 when this subject comes up - "Part of the issue is that I’m underpaid a little; a bigger part of the issue is the other guy is overpaid a lot."

Edit: Just saw there was a discussion on this article about 90 days ago: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2131550