Why Relying on a Single Job Is a Mistake and How Over-Employment Fixes IT Inefficiency
Most IT projects are ineffective; I would put it around 70%. Many lack clear direction and momentum because employees are not engaged.
Impractical features, unclear tasks and requirements, and management without the knowledge or motivation to define a valuable path for the company — that is the common situation.
Example: a large corporation engages a PO to run a project meant to build an important component that could reduce costs, a new module based on a well-known, widely used and well-documented SAP extension. That person could even use AI chat tools to prepare better requirements for the team, instead of handing several contractors 10% of the requirements — shuffling coal from one pile to another.
Several factors contribute to this high failure rate. At the forefront is poor requirements gathering, cited as the leading cause in 39% of failures.
What does this lack of effectiveness mean for the employee? Burnout and no professional development. For companies, it means massive losses running into millions. The current business model, leaning on external contracting firms, creates friction: some internal staff use it as an excuse to offload their own responsibilities, which leaves gaps in accountability.
Generally, most people idle away the hours. If you are efficient, you generate stress, pressure and bad feeling in others. If you want to be a friendly team member, you keep up with the team’s momentum — and if you are passionate, that is often difficult.
Now imagine splitting your time across a few projects. First, you gain a better perspective, and that distance changes what feels important.
It comes in handy when debating insignificant technical quibbles, which are a common source of emotional frustration and burnout.
Overall, if you are a passionate geek, keeping your distance helps you find new motivation and prevents burnout. You stop worrying about unimportant situations and control where you direct your energy.