←back to thread

268 points behnamoh | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.685s | source
Show context
atoav ◴[] No.28667999[source]
For predicting the daily schedules on a film set I always "ran a simulation" of what would be done that day and just summed the predicted minutes. The simulation ran in my head of course, but it included things like: Actors drinking coffee and chatting, costumes getting ready, Camera department forgot memory card in the car, lunch breaks, someone arrives late, etc.

Obviously the major chunk were always scenes and they are usually also the major contributor to the insecurity of the prediction. E.g. working with people who you don't know, weather, technical problems (broken, missing stuff), stuff that just won't work (animals, certain scenes with actors).

But in the end what always mattered was that there was a time plan for each day and at the end of a day we would know wheter we are A) faster as predicted, B) on time or C) slower than predicted. The next day would then be restructured accordingly by the production and usually you'd be back on time by the end of that.

I was usually spot on with my predictions and we never had any issue with getting the planned stuff done.

With programming the whole thing is harder, because it can be even more unpredictable. But what definitly always helps is when you have a feeling for whether you are too slow, on time or you managed to build a time buffer for future doom.

replies(2): >>28669348 #>>28672442 #
frazbin ◴[] No.28672442[source]
dang, software planning is harder than herding hundreds of entertainment people? Not what I would have expected! I always assumed the 'unknown unknowns' were much larger in real life enterprises than in software ones, and that'd make planning harder. A lot of advantages come from software being made out of formal systems.
replies(2): >>28673825 #>>28676557 #
1. kqr ◴[] No.28673825[source]
Software has variability spanning multiple orders of magnitude. In entertainment, you might get one or two extras fewer or more than you needed, but you won't suddenly stand there with a hundred or thousand times more extras than you needed. Similarly, equipment will be hours or days away from where it's supposed to be, but you won't suddenly find out it got dumped on another planet.

Why does software have such extreme orders-of-magnitude variability? Anyone's guess. I like the perspective that software is made out of many pieces of little software, which are in turn made of even more smaller pieces of software. That fractal nature is a qualitative difference to people, which are not made of many tiny people. (As far as I know.)