Mastodon Feed
Boosted by glyph ("Glyph"):
mlevison@hachyderm.io ("Mark Levison") wrote:
Stable teams sound like a nice-to-have until you look at the fields where an error kills someone.
Most of the academic work deals with familiarity, not stability. Roughly: "we've worked together enough in the past to understand each other as individuals".
Cardiac surgeons who worked across multiple hospitals but maintained stable teams had a lower rate of mortality, even with more surgeries performed.
Aviation gives the same signal. 73 percent of the accidents for which information was available occurred on the first day the captain and first officer had flown together. A NASA study found that fatigued crews who had a history of working together made about half as many errors as crews of rested pilots who had not flown together before.
Tired and familiar beat rested and unfamiliar.
Back down to earth: at Wipro increased familiarity reduced defects by 19%, and Larry Maccherone showed stable teams had 40% better predictability.