Brooks Law at 50: adding people makes projects later

Diagram of a network team where each additional person creates more coordination links.
Connection links between members of a team.

It’s fifty years since Fred Brooks wrote his famous warning: “adding people to a late software project makes it later.” Tools have changed, but human coordination and onboarding still take time. The lesson holds.

Fred Brooks was inducted into On a Back of an Envelope’s Hall of Fame where there is a short biography and an assessment of his wider influence.

In 1975, computer scientist Fred Brooks published The Mythical Man-Month, a book based on his experiences managing IBM’s large System/360 programme. Managers often assumed that if a project was behind schedule, they could add more people and speed it up. Brooks showed why that usually fails.

New team members take time to learn the ropes. Existing staff must pause to train them. And as the team grows, everyone spends more time just keeping in touch. Productivity can dip before it rises, and deadlines slip further.

Brooks revisited the ideas in 1995 and stood by his conclusion. The technology changed; the human dynamics didn’t. Half a century from his original book, despite agile methods, cloud platforms, and AI Copilots. Brooks’ warning still describes what project managers see every day

Why it still matters today

  • More people = more conversations. Every extra person means extra meetings, messages, and coordination.
  • Onboarding takes time. Even skilled newcomers need help to understand context, tools, and norms.
  • Complex work has limits. Big, interconnected projects aren’t easy to divide cleanly.
  • Remote and global teams add friction. Time zones and handovers slow feedback loops.
  • Budget lines don’t equal progress. Headcount does not automatically translate to progress.
  • No single tool or method will ever make software development magically easy a theme he expanded on a year later in ‘No Silver Bullet’. This is also true for project management.

Make it happen

What to do instead

• Trim the scope. Deliver a smaller version that still provides value.

• Fix the bottleneck. Tackle the slowest or most blocked part first.

• Finish what’s started. Focus the team on completing current tasks before adding new ones.

• Make responsibilities clear. Define who owns which parts to avoid overlaps.

• Automate the routine. Remove repetitive checks and handoffs where you can.

• Add people carefully. Start with a small, experienced group and give them a clear area to own.

• Value mentoring. Treat training as planned work, not something squeezed in.

• Review progress honestly. Make obstacles visible so they can be fixed quickly. A project rarely misses by a year all at once. It drifts there in small steps. That’s why frequent review and decisive action matter. Spot the slip early; fix the cause now—not later.

Question: How does a large software project get to be one year late? Answer: One day at a time!

When adding people can help

• Independent, well-documented workstreams where tasks don’t collide.

• Testing, data labelling, or migration steps that can be run in parallel safely.

• Backlogs, where the real constraint is slow human review and where it can be distributed cleanly.

Takeaway

Before you add people, change the work: simplify scope, clarify ownership and remove friction. Then, if you still need more hands, add them carefully and plan for the onboarding dip.

Further reading

  • Fred P. Brooks Jr., The Mythical Man‑Month (1975; Anniversary Edition 1995).
  • Fred P. Brooks Jr., “No Silver Bullet—Essence and Accident in Software Engineering” (1986/1987).

Obama’s Project Legacy

President Obama, 44th President of the United States
President Obama, 44th President of the United States

When it comes to remembering the presidential legacy of Barack Obama most of us would think either that he was the first black American president or his controversial healthcare reforms – Obamacare.

I doubt that many of us would mention improving programme and project management in government. However, one of President Obama’s last official duties on the 14th December 2016 was to sign into law the Program Management Improvement and Accountabily Act of 2015 (PMIAA) which is intended to ‘enhance accountability and best practices in project and program management throughout the US federal government’.

PMIAA requires the Deputy Director for Management of the US Office of Management and Budget to:

  • Adopt and oversee implementation of government-wide standards, policies, and guidelines for program and project management for executive agencies;
  • Chair the Program Management Policy Council (established by this Act);
  • Establish standards and policies for executive agencies consistent with widely accepted standards for program and project management planning and delivery;
  • Engage with the private sector to identify best practices in program and project management that would improve federal program and project management;
  • Conduct portfolio reviews to address programs identified as high risk by the Government Accountability Office (GAO);
  • Conduct portfolio reviews of agency programs at least annually to assess the quality and effectiveness of program management, and
  • Establish a five-year strategic plan for program and project management.[1]

The head of each federal agency will be required to appoint a Program Management Improvement Officer to implement agency programme management policies and develop a strategy for enhancing the role of programme managers within that agency. The US Office of Personnel Management is directed to issue regulations that:

  1. Identify key skills and competencies needed for an agency program and project manager.
  2. Establish a new job series or update and improve an existing job series for program and project management within an agency, and
  3. Establish a new career path for program and project managers.

Under the Act, the GAO is instructed to issue a report within three years examining the effectiveness of the following on improving federal program and project management:

  • The standards, policies and guidelines for program and project management;
  • The strategic plan;
  • Program Management Improvement Officers; and
  • The Program Management Policy Council

The legislation received rare bi-partisan support in the US Congress and was supported by the Project Management Institute (PMI). In the PMI’s annual Pulse of the Profession[2] report the institute found that only 64% of US government initiatives ever met their goals and business intent and that government entities wasted $101 million for every $1 billion spent on projects and programmes. The report’s research also showed that ‘projects are 2.5 times more successful when proven project management practices are used… and waste 13 times less money.’

The PMI in association with the US National Academy of Public Administration has published a detailed white paper in July 2017 on Implementing the Program Management Improvement and Accountability Act of 2015 which interested readers can download from the PMI website

It will be ironic if Obama’s enduring legacy turns out not to be the first president of colour but to have created the conditions for a step change in government programme and project efficiency.[3]

1. Summary: S.1550 – 114th Congress (2015-2016), https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/1550
2. Pulse of the Profession, The High Cost of Low Performance, PMI 2016, http://www.pmi.org/-/media/pmi/documents/public/pdf/learning/thought-leadership/pulse/pulse-of-the-profession-2016.pdf
3. Implementing the Program Management Improvement and Accountability Act of 2015, PMI 2017, https://www.pmi.org/-/media/pmi/documents/public/pdf/business-solutions/program-management-accountability-act.pdf