If you work long enough in software engineering industry, then you probably have already met typical hiring problems: 1) you have a really awesome open position, but nobody good enough responds to your job description in months, and those who do, they are not able to pass basic phone screening; 2) you managed to hire a person with required qualification, but for some reason you both become dissatisfied with each other, and hired person leaves soon. What is the root cause of such problems? It is stated in this article that all such problems are caused by a lack of understanding of the project lifecycle. However, project’s instantaneous state is the primary determiner of values and traits required to perform efficiently. People who create projects from scratch are of entirely different type than those who work for mature projects, even if they have identical sets of skills. Misplacing them is a bad idea. Unfortunately, such plain facts are out of the scope of university courses and have to be learned the hard way. This article explains lifecycle of a typical software project and how it affects selection of the people. Final section contains list of practical advices supposed to reduce number of hiring errors. This article would be helpful for everybody employed in software engineering industry, disregarding their role.

Lifecycle of a typical project

If you take a close look at any software product, then it may seem constant during its entire life: it has constant name, constant style, constant set of rules. As a consumer, you know what to expect from it and what it wants from you in return. However, the project which is responsible for this product is not so constant: starting from its inception and until its death, it transitions through a number of distinct phases. As an external observer, you will never be able to notice any differences between them, even though the project internally experiences major changes during phase transitions, up to full replacement of the team. Fundamentally, there are only three well-defined phases: initial development until product launch, period of fast growth, and long-lasting period of maintenance until product death. These three phases differ dramatically. In fact, they differ so much that most people are able to work efficiently only during single phase that suits them best. If people are misplaced, they become the leading cause of poor productivity and dissatisfaction among both employers and employees. But let’s start with the phases themselves first.

Phase #1. Induction

This phase includes everything from the moment when the first line of code is written and till the moment when the product is launched. This phase is responsible for forming the shape of the project, which includes KPIs, technologies and required qualification of the people. Once the shape is formed, it stays virtually unchanged for the whole duration of the project.

Good thing about induction phase is that per-person efficiency is very high. Small codebase, absence of legacy and modest requirements for quality make it possible to complete induction phase with only few people. People in small teams know each other, which makes communication naturally easy. Any problem may be solved in a matter of seconds even by a person with poor communication skills.

Notable characteristic of the induction phase is that while effort is very high, it doesn’t generate immediate feedback. Work is done blindly. Everything planned and done during this phase is pure speculation of a smart mind. There is nobody to tell you what part of work is really important and will survive, and what part of work doesn’t have any value and is not worse of spending time on it. Not only does this phase require you to sacrifice spare time and ignore personal interests, but it also may turn out in the end that all efforts were in vain.

Lack of feedback limits maximal possible duration of the induction phase to a year, maybe to a couple of years, but no more. If you don’t manage to complete what you have planned in this amount of time, then, without any feedback, growing psychological discomfort will reduce productivity to zero even in case when money is still available. Dissatisfied people leave, and without people project dissipates in no time. Even if you are lucky and project succeeds technically, this doesn’t mean anything yet. Now it is the time when the project is to be tested against consumers' expectations. It takes some time while consumers (public audience or a private customer, depending on the project type) are trying to adapt to your product, eventually accepting or rejecting it. And only if their decision is to accept it, the project may be named as a true success. It naturally transitions to the second phase in such case, where development will be entirely feedback-driven.

Phase #2. Growth

Things heat up very quickly during this phase. Initial push from product launch produces influx of money, people and new ideas. Money come either from product sales or, more typical in superhot software engineering industry, from further funding. New funds and growing reputation of the brand attract more people. Ideas are the result of the established business feedback and the large number of newcomers. These three things — money, ideas and people — are constantly burning together resulting in increase in business value. And with higher business value more money, people and ideas come…​ typical chain reaction.


Positive side of this phase is that development is done in smaller steps than before, which is easier. Smaller steps mean that there is no life-threatening dependence on people with 360° skills anymore. Instead, work can be split into multiple highly specialized parts. It is also not so scary to fail one small step now: it won’t destroy the entire project. You may even intentionally try some highly risky ideas you always kept in mind but were afraid of trying.

Another positive aspect of the growth phase is that feedback is sensed nearly instantly, which allows to adjust plans on the fly. Web development provides the most extreme example to this idea. Feedback cycle may be as short as one week: you may have an idea on Monday, implement it by Wednesday, deploy it into production on Friday, and receive the first results in the beginning of the next week. By accepting and rejecting ideas very fast, development works at this phase like greedy parallel algorithm, extending its tentacles both in-width and in-depth to find the most optimal way.

The further the project goes into this stage, the more it takes the shape of what you normally call "The Project", with both positive and negative traits. While large army of people means large workforce, it creates multi-layered hierarchy at the same time. In large hierarchies, people don’t know one another and, thus, can’t communicate well. This significantly reduces per-person efficiency and scatters control over the project. In addition, expect to face legacy, which becomes a serious issue during this phase.

Project can’t grow indefinitely: sooner or later, some limiting factor will appear and burning process will stop. Maybe you will run out of good ideas, or maybe the world will change enough so that the product won’t be so relevant anymore, or maybe exponentially increasing cost of bureaucracy will become comparable with income. When it happens, it happens transparently, without any explicit milestone and public announcement. Project slowly transitions into its third and final phase.

Phase #3. Maintenance

Key goal of this phase is to keep project afloat without increasing cost of ownership. It is clear that the project won’t generate more profits than it currently does. Nobody will say this idea aloud. Instead, people will act like wonders are going to happen, even though everybody understands subconsciously that the project is stagnant.

Term "maintenance" covers much broader range of activities than you can imagine. In theory, it is limited to performing scheduled tasks according to the detailed instructions and fixing ad-hoc problems. But the reality is different. Due to political conflicts (inevitable in large groups), desire for promotion, in order to keep people interested, and simply because of boredom, maintenance may also include following odd activities:

  • Rewriting the project in another language, switching to different frameworks or libraries. In extreme cases, this may even lead to original technology after couple of such iterations!

  • Making releases consisting entirely of tiny, barely noticeable enhancements

  • Artificially establishing excessive formalities and processes, e.g. daily meetings

  • Creating immense amount of small entities

  • Relying mainly on manual, error-prone operations

  • Intentional use of technologies not fit to purpose ("LaTeX is the only true documentation language")

The more intellectually challenging the original project was, the more intellectually challenging its maintenance oddities are. They may range from running A/B test to figure out what color results in more ad clicks, #888888 or #888887, to rewriting the entire system to enhance performance by 0.1%. But common factor is always the same: no matter what is done during the maintenance phase, it doesn’t contribute to business value. The only truly relevant tasks are those where you act on behalf of maintenance crew to keep HMS Project afloat. Occasionally, it is possible to catch a brief glimpse of sensible work, but that’s nothing compared to the initial project making.

Generally speaking, maintenance phase is not so bad from employee’s perspective. Never-ending list of odd tasks guarantees stability and allows to plan personal life for years in advance — something that is not possible during less predictable induction and growth phases. Maintenance phase is also somewhat beneficial to recent graduates, who can learn much from successful project in calm environment. But bear in mind that it will implant extremely biased job values in the long run, so that people will never be able to perform well during induction or growth phases anymore.

Maintenance phase projects become bloated with excessive people very fast. Being deprived of sensible constructive goal, smartest people leave, and created gap is closed by a number of not so smart newcomers, which forces even more people to leave. This, once again, is a chain reaction, a variety of negative selection. Large army of people requires great expenses and creates management inflexibility. Together with falling positions of the product in the market, they slowly by steady move project towards its inevitable death. Compared to previous phases, maintenance phase may last for very long, sometimes for decades if conditions are right.

To summarize: induction phase forms the skeleton of the project along with the amount of tissue barely enough to bring beast to life. Growth phase adds more and more tissue until the point is reached when the beast becomes too bulky to be healthy. And maintenance phase is responsible for curing diseases in already grown up beast.

Why is it so? When people use terms "business" and "work", they usually refer to some sort of activity when business value is comparable to efforts, such as in farming, manufacturing or logistics. If you work hard enough to produce two times more items than one month before, your profits will generally increase twofold as well. However, vast majority of the software projects are not of this kind. It may be very costly to create them, but once both technical and business components of the project succeed, money begins to flow with little additional effort, either from sales or from further funding. Project acts like cow that can be milked for years after this has happened. Linear correlation between effort and business value is observable only during the second phase, the growth.


It should be obvious that real world is much more diverse. Consider above model to be the arithmetic mean calculated over the large selection of the projects. And in the same way as the center of mass of a hollow donut is located outside of its body, in the very same way there is no single project that ideally fits this model. There are companies the whole existence of which depends on single project that they created long time ago and have been protecting since that time. On the other hand, there are whole industries constantly living in the induction phase. Consider, for example, game company: as soon as some title is released, they start to work on the next one. Feedback from gamers is fused into the development of the next title, and maintenance is reduced to just couple of weeks.

Furthermore, bear in mind that single company may run multiple independent projects in different phases. As such, knowledge about one of the projects should not be used to make judgement about the others. But the key idea remains the same: each separate successful endeavour transitions through the sequence of three phases: initial development until first feedback, rapid growth, and plateau of maintenance.

Also watch out for the fake projects. They may seem like normals for an external observer, but in fact they have no business value. Canonical example is the project that was initiated inside larger maintenance phase project with the purpose to rewrite or remake something. It passes through all three phases, but in fact it doesn’t have any business value. It doesn’t matter whether it succeeds or fails — it won’t affect the business. As such, there will be no feedback and no bright future. Another group of fakes consists of projects which were initially normal, then failed to succeed technically or commercially, but are still continued to be financed. There may be a lot of reasons to do so: publicly traded company may be afraid of reputation losses if it declares one of its projects as a failure, it may be because CEO’s friends and relatives are in charge of the failed project, maybe startup founders are the gods of persuasion or maybe there are simply no other projects to invest money to. (In modern time of software industry domination, the problem "we have money but not the ideas" occurs much more often than the opposite one.) If the project didn’t make it from the very first time, chances that it will succeed in future are nil. Fake project of such type may live for years, occasionally demonstrating convulsions as it tries to unsuccessfully enter the market.

When being hired, you may wish to figure out the phase of the project under consideration. Below is the list of common characteristics which should help you in doing so.

Induction phase:

  • Product is not launched yet, existence of ugly prototype is highly possible

  • Work is divided into massive tasks without complete understanding of how to do them

  • Personal responsibility is highly valued

  • Project is severely understaffed

  • Candidates are ranked by number of previously completed projects

  • Employees tend to leave late on Fridays

Growth phase:

  • Many various tasks to choose from, you are even allowed to create your own task

  • Project had a lot of major achievements during the last year

  • Candidates are ranked by skill level

  • Project has a lot of open positions

  • Attempt to figure out what you can do best

  • Employees tend to leave late on Fridays

Maintenance phase:

  • Formal job description containing long lists of technologies, responsibilities and benefits

  • No clear definition of what needs to be done

  • Long lasting interviews

  • Overstaffed; non-technical managers constitute 10% of staff or more

  • Project doesn’t have any commercially important achievements during the last year

  • Often very strange system of values, any other system of values is not tolerated

  • Candidates are ranked by years of experience

  • Employees tend to leave early on Fridays


After model of a project lifecycle is accepted, everything further will come out as a direct consequence of this model. With so many differences between phases, it should be obvious now that entirely different values should be cherished and entirely different people should be hired for each phase. For example, person who works effectively during induction phase won’t be so effective (and happy) during maintenance phase and vice versa. Three phases are three entirely different worlds with poorly interchangeable values and people.

If I had to choose only single word for the induction phase, then it would be "targeting". Targeting. Targeting. Targeting. While the product is not launched yet and there is no confidence in its success, it would be fatal to do anything excessive. Every, no matter how small, task should begin with the question: do we really need it? Is it crucial for the very first version? or can we postpone it till growth phase, when there are much more resources available than now? If such questions are not asked, project won’t survive for too long: either resources will run out before it is even completed or the quality of the final product will be extremely poor. In latter case, resource scattering will result in situation when the first version of the product contains all bells and whistles you wanted it to contain but nothing that is worse of real business value. If the product is intended for the general audience, then it won’t attract substantial number of users. If the product is contract-based, then the customer won’t be interested in further cooperation with you.

If, for example, your goal is to provide people with quantum teleportation via webcam, then it would be a bad idea to spend 80% of the time on polishing user interface and only 20% on technology itself. Is it the UI that is the core idea of your project? If you manage to make UI awesome, people will say "wow!" but will move away because of poorly working technology. On the other hand, if you invest almost all effort in technology, people will say "what an ugly UI!" but will stay with the product. Induction phase is not the time when you can afford luxury of doing all components of the project well. This idea spans to all levels of development: from the project as a whole and down to a single-day task.

Key values of the induction phase project are the abilities to distinguish between primary and secondary tasks, to concentrate on primary tasks, and to suppress desire to do anything else. Latter is not so easy as it seems at first glance. The problem is that people prefer to do what they already know how to do: what they were taught at university, what they read from books and what they managed to complete before. This is the most pleasant type of work. There are plenty of guys and girls who are willing to create something by the book, but only few of them are fine with taking responsibility for something even slightly innovative, because it is unpredictable, requires one hundred times bigger effort and may still fail in the end. But the irony is that age of technology negatively correlates with commercial value: once some technology becomes well-studied, it cannot be used to earn much money anymore.

When project enters growth phase, pressure levels of being exceptionally targeted drop down. Instead, many new people appear and many parallel activities are initiated. Here is Michael — he is responsible for optimization of the digital to quantum converter, here is Alice — she researches ways to make tissue reconstruction less painful, here is David — he makes Android version of our application, and here are two guys …​ oops, they are totally new. Office space becomes like a large construction site. And as with any large construction site, the key problem is that people are dependent on each other. The ability to effectively communicate becomes crucial as the project progresses through the growth phase.

Important note: term "communication" is not the ability to say random 10,000 words per day or to schedule five daily meetings. It is all about fitting well into the production chain, which means that you need to think in terms of dependencies between you and the others. There is no correlation between being talkative and communication skills: you may talk not too much, but to the point. The opposite is also true: reading aloud latest news every fifteen minutes in no way will contribute to project’s success, though it will create high personal visibility.

Another crucial value of the growth phase is the ability to create quality things. If during the induction phase you could (and had to) sacrifice quality of all components which do not constitute the core part of the project, now you can’t do the same thing. Because with so aggressive growth, expect that dozens of new components will be built atop of current ones in just a year. If quality is poor then everything will fall apart. This will severely limit expansion of the project. It is a good idea to create minimal quality standards and apply them even to those components which are not visible to consumers and are not directly tradeable.

Key goal of the last phase — maintenance — is to support project without major increase in its cost of ownership. Constantly increasing cost of ownership is one of the two causes that will eventually kill the project (another one is the declining performance of the product in the market). Death will happen sooner or later, and your goal is to postpone its moment for as long as possible. The most important quality during maintenance phase is the absence of ambitions, both technological and career, no matter how strange this may sound. People who possess career ambitions spend significant amount of time on politics. This includes hiring swarms of underqualified people: they are easily controllable and would have to agree with whatever they are said to agree with. Inflated amount of underqualified employees is exactly the thing that makes costs high but doesn’t add to business value. Hence the rule: the fewer ambitions people have, the healthier the project is.

People who have technological ambitions do not stay employed in maintenance phase for too long. And those who do, they start to do odd things: build overcomplicated unsupportable systems, work on a pet project or play with new unrelated technology. Managers, understanding their own uselessness, have to agree with such type of work because they do not want to loose employees. "Fine. Do whatever you want that at least somehow relates to the project. Just don’t leave, OK?" It turns out that best matching people for maintenance phase are those who have level of activity comparable to that of attenuated vaccine: not too low, not too high. Entirely passive people are useless, while too active people only make things worse. There is no anything at maintenance phase where excessive activity could be directed to.

As with growth, communication skill is also important, but now its goal is different — to fight bureaucracy. To fight, not to comply. Usually all attempts to solve the problem with the correct procedures end with the problem becoming irrelevant earlier than it can be solved. Therefore, the only acceptable solution is to know "right" people and "right" workarounds. In general, solving problems with unconventional, shadow approaches is more natural during maintenance phase than with official ones. QA team is not able to complete testing in time? Maybe there is some acquaintance of yours in high enough position who can take responsibility of releasing new version without QA approval. Your laptop has given up the ghost? Maybe the fastest way is to buy it with your own funds after agreeing on additional bonus to cover its cost. You need more server hardware? Of course, you could fill in form 27B/6 and solve the quest "get 10 approvals" but it would be much easier to wait for some time until production environment starts crashing and dissatisfied users switch to competing service. Required hardware will magically appear on the very next day.


So large differences in values between phases immediately lead to the idea that completely different people are required for each of them. There is some optimal type of people for each phase. Opposite is also true: because there are three and only three phases, people tend to adapt to one phase that suits them best. Of course, this is not an instant process, but after 5-10 years of experience, people already know things they are fine with and things that they are not going to touch ever again. In general, there are only three project phases and only three classes of people. People of different classes have entirely different set of motives, goals and expectations. It is not very hard to distinguish between them.


Induction phase is best done with pioneers. Pioneers are motivated by creating something new from scratch, something which is ideally in high demand in the market. It is not uncommon for such people to often change field of interest: mobile games in 2010, cryptocurrencies in 2012, self-driving cars in 2015. They switch their field of interest as soon as some new technology emerges. Being interested in what they do, they work hard regardless their age and marital status. They require full absence of rules in return. Some of them agree to work only during nights, others refuse to use bugtrackers, and, of course, almost all of them do not care about such trifles as code quality and testing. Actually, this is a good trait for induction phase projects because all these best practices, which are natural for further phases, are intended to fight complexity, but induction phase lacks it. Induction phase is all about making something working as fast as possible. It requires to be very targeted — exactly the trait possessed by pioneers.

How would someone distinguish a pioneer? First of all, by skill: it is high and broad. It is high because years of constructive work can’t leave you with low skill and broad because of experience in large number of technologies. This doesn’t contradict the fact that pioneers may not necessarily be able to answer highly specialized questions: people of such class would rather prefer to find workaround rather than to spend a week on studying documentation. Expect that such people are able to solve any problem but not necessarily in a most efficient or natural way. CV of such people mentions a lot of different projects with a duration between three months and couple of years each. Such people are fast and dirty thinkers, they concentrate on immediate goal.

Positive traits of pioneers become their negative traits when project transitions into the growth phase. Growth phase means a lot of new people, it gives birth to the first elements of bureaucracy and team rules, and it means large codebase with at least some legacy. All these things are not acceptable for pioneers. Add to this the fact that technology is already not so hot as it was before, they loose interest in project and leave on their own after receiving first decent offer. Only those stay who initially were better suited for growth phase. After pioneers leave, it turns out that their code, albeit working satisfactory, is not so good from the inside: it is ugly and is not supportable by any means, there is no way you can build anything sophisticated atop of it. When people of the second phase — growers — see it, they can’t refrain from using bad language and eventually rewrite everything.


Motivation of the growers is entirely different: they want to grow huge, high quality product. They realize that this is not possible to make it independently and are able to communicate well with their own kind in order to form effective production chain. They split work into short term tasks, such as adding new features, performance tuning, refactoring, conducting experiments, creating robust test suites, crystallizing best practices, teaching others. Such class of people require immense amount of goals and resources, more goals and more resources, and even more goals and even more resources.

Similar to pioneers, they have high skill because they are constantly occupied by constructive work. Quite often they have one or two fields of interest where they are unarguable experts in both theory and practice. Such type of people always have a todo list, either on paper or in their heads with hundreds of tasks and ideas. They maintain it in up-to-date state by constantly adding, expanding, deleting and prioritizing items in this list. Growers are hard but slow thinkers capable of comprehensive analysis of current situation if compared to pioneers, who are faster but who see only immediate step ahead of them and ignore everything else. Growers are identified by extreme attention to details and the ability to give in-depth answers. They are also especially interested in skill of people they will have to work with because they heavily rely on collaboration.


People who natively fit in maintenance phase — maintainers — are motivated primarily by money. Their goal is to get as much money and other benefits as possible by making effort barely enough in order not to be fired. They decided to stick with software engineering industry only because it offered good salaries. They will leave as soon as they get an offer with compensation of +10% or from a company with a better name. They have zero passion about their job, though they will try to persuade you in the opposite by using eloquent words during the interview. This is the source of all their negative traits.

The first major problem is their level: they have poor skills and are not able to think by themselves, even after decades of employment. They are able to hold their positions only because they managed to accumulate some basic experience and now they are trying to constantly sell it again and again. They are trained to give basic answers to any interview question: you may ask them anything you like, and you will get literal quote from Wikipedia but without any understanding of what it actually means. If they encounter a problem out of their experience, they buy modern book on relevant subject and start doing exactly as written in the book, step by step, without any traces of thinking process. While growers "grow" processes and practices by adjusting and sharing their experience, maintainers just stupidly follow the instructions, like if a book contained military directives. Exact instructions, authoritative people, specifications and internal policies always have the top priority and are considered as something which is given by the gods from above. If given problem doesn’t have such step-by-step instructions, they avoid it at all costs. The good thing is that they are really good at following instructions, they are not get tired and bored by them, and this can be exploited. The only thing that you need to keep in mind is that they must be constantly supervised: otherwise, lack of motivation would put them into idle state.

Such class of people dramatically differ from pioneers and growers. As such, they can be easily identified even by a non-technical staff during the interview. They usually ask long lists of questions about minor benefits: is it possible to work one hour less on Friday? how many displays am I entitled to have and of what sizes? how many flavours of cookies are there in the kitchen? and what about different sorts of tea? have you got a playing room? and the like. When pioneers and growers ask for something, they do it because of some justifiable reason. But this kind will demand each and every benefit disregarding whether it improves their effectiveness or not. Another easily detectable trait of a maintainer class person is an attempt to rely on certifications as much as possible to avoid technical questions. In most ridiculous cases, it may be like following: "How do you count unique elements in SQL? — Don’t worry! I am a certified database architect. Next question, please." Of course, not many people have access to trainings, but those who do, they make full use of this opportunity.

I understand that description above doesn’t sound exciting, but this is exactly the type of people who fit best in maintenance phase. More skillful, thinking and motivated candidates are attractive but they either will leave very soon or will unintentionally destruct the project with remakings and overcomplication of everything they touch. Additionally, maintenance phase may be a perfect place for: a) novices and b) people of senior age. Novices are good because they don’t have any experience yet and, thus, are interested or at least have to be interested in any work you give them. People of senior age tolerate the dreadfulness of the maintenance phase well even if they are the veterans of induction or growth phases: they have already accomplished everything they had wanted, and now they are fine with slow work in exchange for long-term job security.

It is crucial to understand that people are poorly interchangeable between phases. People who are natural for induction and growth phases are not able to work effectively during the maintenance phase because there is no any constructive work. And those who have to stay employed at maintenance phase, they start rewriting everything and doing odd things because of boredom (list of such oddities was given above). Opposite — that is, maintainers working during induction or growth phase — is also not possible because years of following simple instructions result in poor skills. As such, they simply are not able to pass technical interview or, if managed to pass, won’t do anything useful without detailed instructions and constant supervision.

Differences between pioneers and growers are not so dramatical, but anyway are too large to be ignored. When project transitions to growth phase, pioneers leave because team restrictions become unbearable. They would like to do something newer rather than expanding already launched product. They do not have 100% control over the project anymore and have to reach consensus with others about every aspect of development, which makes them unhappy. Opposite situation — that is, growers hired for induction phase — is acceptable, though results in inefficiency. Growers work best when they are given seed crystal and substrate in the form of already working, albeit of poor quality, product and large amount of resources, and they see their goal in growing huge crystal out of them. When they create product from scratch, they spend considerable amount of time on activities of purely strategic meaning which will become eventually helpful but currently are of no use. For example, they may decide to refactor just written piece of code three times in a row, develop optimal code style guide or build list of nice to have features. Such activities only waste valuable time, which may be fatal for project success.


Of course, real world is much more diverse than that. There are people who are able to switch between phases and there are those who can’t find their favourite phase even after years of experience. It is better to think about fitting as of triplet of percentage values, where each value describes how fit person for corresponding phase is. The same is true for phases: every phase has some traits of others two. For example, research based project will always depend on pioneers and growers, even in maintenance phase. But for maximum efficiency, the bulk of the people should be of matching class: pioneers for induction phase, growers for growth phase, and maintainers for maintenance phase.

One of the most paradoxical situations is when project in maintenance phase intentionally hires pioneers and growers. You may name any well-known company — they all do the same thing. They succeed in doing so because being already a success allows them to use their brand name, high salaries and already hired people of these classes as a bait. People who are being hired either do not understand what awaits them or have to accept the offer because of circumstances (three children) or because they don’t know about the existence of other phases yet. The situation is paradoxical because neither project nor people benefit from such misplacement. Once project has reached maintenance phase, there is no turning back. You can’t magically convert it to induction or growth phase: if you wanted to do so, you’d better create new separate project. Hired pioneers and growers either leave immediately or become occupied with very odd things which do not contribute to the well-being of the project, but eventually also leave. As the result, you may find a ton of negative reviews about any well-known company from really good people. They all state the same thing: that internally working at such company is not the same as it was advertised. In general, expect that companies with popular brands consist mainly of projects in maintenance phase.


1. Hire people matching project phase

Different phases require people of entirely different classes. It may be even better to hire person of irrelevant field of expertise but of matching class instead of doing the opposite. When people fit naturally, they become useful in a matter of hours, while people who don’t fit naturally spend a lot of time either by trying to adapt to the alien phase or by trying to change the whole project to match their expectations. Both activities are destructive and unsuccessful.

2. Make job description matching project phase

Otherwise, how exactly are people supposed to figure out whether project suits them or not? While job description "java dev is required, paying with money, free donuts, half page of motivational mottoes" is fine for the project in maintenance phase, it would only scare relevant candidates and attract people without proper qualities if published by a project in induction or growth phase. Job description for projects of these two phases must focus on what needs to be done: created, optimized or researched. Examples: "C dev to create linux NIC driver", "port iphone game to android", "work on emotions recognition in speech", "PM to merge five departments". Actual task and scope of ownership may be adjusted during negotiations, but without initial clear message, job description is doomed to attract primarily poorly skilled opportunists. Projects with clear constructive goal — that is, during induction and growth phases — make serious error when they blindly follow job description format common to maintenance phase.

3. Create work environment matching project phase

People of different classes have different expectations about working conditions, satisfying them is a key to good performance and well-being. Pioneers require full freedom: no bureaucracy, no petty managers, free choice of tools and processes. Growers depend on quiet working conditions: projects in growth phase become crowded very fast, and locking them into noisy and densely packed open space offices is a bad idea. And only maintainers are attracted by goodies like food, trainings and playground, as they alleviate the boredom of a typical lazy working day.

4. Make sure that candidates are interviewed by people of matching class

This is particularly important during transitions between phases. The problem is that candidates are traditionally interviewed by company veterans, who are predominantly of different class. In general, people make positive judgements only about their own kind: pioneers like pioneers, growers like growers, and maintainers like maintainers. If you do not interfere in hiring process, then the majority of the relevant candidates will be rejected, and it will take long time before a significant number of them manages to "leak" through the interview barrier imposed by veterans. Once they are inside, they become dominating faction very fast due to their high efficiency, which is the result of being in the right place and in the right time.

5. Learn how to figure out the phase of the project when you are hired

Ask following questions during the interview: what needs to be done? what is the business value of this particular task? of overall project? what did the interviewer do yesterday? Induction phase projects have concrete constructive goal but do not have any formal processes. Growth phase projects have large number of well-defined tasks to choose from and some formal processes. Maintenance phase projects do not have any constructive goal but have strict formal processes.

6. Do not participate in fake projects

If the project fails to achieve business goals, run away. Project will never recover, no matter how much money is artificially pumped in and how persuasive manager’s speeches are. It is hard to accept that project failed despite months of hard work. But it is true.

7. Search for phase that fits you best

Induction phase offers maximum freedom but it also requires maximum effort without any help and supervision, often in a field where there are no best practices established yet. Growth phase offers team action with the opportunity to build large successful product, but in return it restricts freedom and you also won’t be named as the father of a project despite expending effort no less than pioneers did. Maintenance phase offers stability, lazy working days and a great number of goodies, but all your efforts will never make any difference to business, and there even no constructive goal present in vast majority of cases.

8. Do not work for too long for maintenance phase if it is your first place of work

Try others. If it turns out that maintenance phase is exactly what you are looking for, then you always will be able to return back. But moving out from maintenance phase is virtually impossible: skills and experience accumulate ten times slower during it than during induction and growth phases. As such, you simply won’t be able to pass technical interviews.

9. Do not be fooled by big promises

Companies with a lot of stagnant projects, despaired by the inability to hire quality candidates, often use following trick. They artificially create one elite department with ultra high salaries, visibility and importance. Once it is populated, it is aggressively used for advertising purposes. Interviewers will constantly refer to it, promising all of its benefits. However, in the end of the interview, you will be offered to work for some another, not so popular, department on entirely different conditions. This will be supplemented by the promises that you will be transfered as soon as possible to elite department. As you have already guessed, this will never happen. Even if you manage to prove yourself (which is virtually impossible by working for a dying project), high self esteem of elite department employees will reject anybody who worked for an ordinary department.