However, there are many factors that affect this, and influence the severity of the problem as well as the teams ability to deal with the problem. Allan mentions one, the teams processes and practices. However, another really important one is the character of the developers involved, especially the new ones.
Imagine the hypothetical case where you magically recruit only developers that are actually capable of such a high level of self training that the negative impact on the team is much less than average (obviously never zero). Imagine also that the answers to the questions are usually available without another team member having to spend time. For example, the answers lie in the code itself, and any associated well written documentation, including feature specification, project goals, etc.
Obviously this is a hypothetical scenario essentially never achieved in corporate development, but it does exist in the real world, in many open source projects. Often people enter open source projects because they did their own self-training, read the code, tried things out and made working contributions that were good enough to get the attention of the project owners, and as a result received admittance to the team. This scales much better, and faster, than normal recruitment. So why does this not happen in the corporate development world? Usually because it relies on statistical factors no often achieved, related to the percentage of available developers of sufficient and appropriate skills, also sufficiently interested in the project to put in the time. This is a low number, especially when you consider that by the term 'interested' I also imply that the developer is able to make a living from this activity.
So how do corporate development projects benefit from this? Or can they? The problem being that corporate projects are, almost by definition, not interesting enough to the potential developers.
Personally I believe it is possible to find a middle ground, if you close the gap from both ends:
- move the project goals closer to the developers goals (make the project much more interesting to open source developers, make it open source, make it do things more interesting to a wider audience)
- move the developers goals closer towards the projects goals (ie. pay the developers)
Is this really hypothetical? No, I've actually been putting this into practice with my most recent recruitment drive. I recruited three new remote developers without reading a single CV or holding a single interview. Instead I simulated the open source approach by using the following steps:
- require a code contribution, which was evaluated (testing not only coding skills, but ability to read specs, work remotely, solve problems independently, do internet research, and perform self-training)
- contract for a trial period, testing their ability to perform with other remote developers, double checking their skills, notably an increasing understanding of the project itself
- contract for longer periods with tighter integration into the team
One final point. This approach does not solve the problems identified by Allan Kelly. It only serves to reduce their impact. And it does introduce another set of problems related to efficient project management of loosely coupled remote teams. That is a subject for separate blog :-)