For “in-house developed, original, original system projects,” the percentage of multi-skilled personnel on the team will determine a significant percentage of the product’s success or failure.
So it is better to fill all the leadership classes of a team with multi-skilled personnel. And because the percentage of multi-skilled personnel in that team will affect the scrap-and-build cycle, it is better to have a small team of 3~7 people in the pre-production phase. With such a team, changes to the game concept are judged solely on whether the game will be interesting, and no one is thinking about losing what they have created. This is because, as multi-skilled personnel, they are not workers whose deliverables are evaluated, but are in a position to be evaluated by the sales of their deliverables.
-
- Percentage of multi-skilled workforce shortens the trial cycle.
- Why?
- I think this, written in another paragraph, is the key
-
Pre-production often fails, and when it does, it is important to give up meekly. If you can’t throw it away because of the sunk cost of making it, or if you go through with it just because it looks cool from a visual art standpoint, it will be disastrous afterwards.
- People with high sunk cost bias are not good at throwing things away.
- The project envisioned here has a high probability of failure and requires repeated trial and error.
- In situations where people should fail and take on new challenges, high sunk bias prevents action.
-
Why do multi-skilled personnel have lower sunk cost bias?
- Being a multi-skilled personnel is a result, the main one being the “first generation” as discussed here
- People who made things before the division of labor was developed gain experience in activities with the goal of “completing things”.
- On the other hand, those who joined a company with a well-developed division of labor later and participated in manufacturing were given “their share of the work” and gained experience in activities aimed at “completing their share of the work”
- With respect to the discussion of whether or not to discard B when there is a sub-element B in a certain game A
- People who feel their goal is to “complete game A” don’t mind losing game B.
- People who feel that their goal is “to complete element B” feel that it’s a total denial of their work accomplishments.
This page is auto-translated from /nishio/マルチスキル人材と試行のサイクル using DeepL. If you looks something interesting but the auto-translated English is not good enough to understand it, feel free to let me know at @nishio_en. I’m very happy to spread my thought to non-Japanese readers.