Problems with game development have as much to do with successful leadership as they do with how we, as an industry, advertise to and recruit from the workforce masses (both established and brand new personnel). The core component around which leadership and recruitment revolve is infrastructure; how well we establish and maintain it for our businesses, our productions, and the success of the personnel working within.

If we advertise life-altering excitement to freshly-graduated, incredibly eager newcomers, without telling them "what else they have won," we are doing neither ourselves, nor them, any good favors.

If we attempt to recruit successful project managers, from the general software development sector (artificial intelligence / mainframe / office productivity / networking / security, etc.), without sharing with them how unique the production pathways are within entertainment software development (or asking those candidates to explain their true grasp of game development processes during an interview), then, we are, once again, poking ourselves in the eyes.

The success of game development personnel, from all rungs on the ladder, and the products resulting from their own blood, sweat, and tears, even then, rely less on their talent and far more on a solid business approach and infrastructure. If your infrastructure involves a short-term foundation that washes away in the face of hardcore, long-term planning, then, it had better be “by design,” where your preferred business model is a highly mobile one, with shallow overhead. Otherwise, you will have simultaneously ruined one or more products and, potentially, the livelihood of one or more people.

There is a phrase used in the National Football League to describe coaches, players, and teams who have achieved some success and “look great on paper” but not so great between the hash marks, and that phrase is “paper champion.”

Even a quick profit business, these days, requires a good infrastructure. In fact, you want a solid infrastructure which, regardless of your business goals, encourages and supports forward-thinking leaders and resourceful production personnel who have been in the trenches, have talked the talk, and can walk the walk as a result.

A paper champion will only get soggy and wilt when the blood, sweat, and tears begin to flow during production.  Studio longevity, project quality, and new-and-existing personnel, without a legitimate infrastructure to limit the fallout, all pay the price, in large and small chunks, until only crumbs and a failed effort remain.

There is only one scenario, in acquiring the right personnel, where there may be little-to-no operating room: your 800-pound publisher, or heavy-handed private financier, has explained to you that the project must begin pre-production by X date, full-production by Y date, and reach gold master by Z date. This explanation has been deemed non-negotiable, with a subtle suggestion that dates will prove more important than quality.

Being forced to choose from a field of candidates who do not meet even the baseline position requirements (with the given that such standards are not Herculean), for either leadership or production positions, is like being asked to choose between swallowing a glass of "100 proof" hydrochloric acid or decapitating yourself, objectively speaking, of course.

This "do it or else" scenario is not rare, and, unless you have the righteous, big picture nerve and / or financial comfort to tell your publisher / financier to "take this short-sighted process and shove it," you must tie on the darkest-and-thickest blindfold you own, throw your sharpest dart in the direction of heavy breathing and dancing hoof noises, and, then, just listen intently for the loudest HEE-HAW. The candidate who suddenly asks for gauze and some ointment is your new employee, like it or lump it.

Just imagine all of the times game development studios have furnished incomplete job descriptions to HR managers and external recruitment personnel. The chances of removing that blindfold and seeing an actual donkey have suddenly improved 100 fold.

We can all do better than this, and many of us have acknowledged as much at one time or another. There will have to be a few pioneering companies (that comprehend but are not tied to current games industry business standards), with non-traditional funding sources and well-planned long-term infrastructures, as well as several bright, proven industry veterans who have that righteous, big picture nerve, in order to solve the production and game development problems of today for a more pleasant, productive tomorrow and well beyond.

There is delicious irony, however, in that this day of April 22nd, 2009 is Earth Day, which represents the annual opportunity for most people on the planet to attempt to adopt a more energy efficient way of living their lives and operating their businesses.

We – the people of the games industry – have our own Earth Day, as it were, and it just happens to be every day. We have the opportunity – every day – to enhance the infrastructure of our companies, plan our projects better, and, in turn, remove many of the job stability limitations and performance roadblocks placed on us and our products. Every day that we delay such achievable and necessary improvements is just one more day that we prevent our “world” of game development from moving forward as a leading industry . . . and moving away from its history as a step-child off-shoot of children’s toys.

If you are up to the challenge, I offer a few infrastructure-based suggestions and potential solutions, in support of "Games Industry Day," in a 6-part article from 2008, entitled "Transforming the Games Industry Into A Well-Oiled Machine."