[ZeroSolstice]

Why did you think you needed to hire a junior dev before even starting work on the application? I know estimation can be a difficult task but the typical "I'm moving so fast..." type experiences usually mean you didn't or don't understand your tooling or the scope.

Also how were you going to take on a junior dev and a new framework at the same time? Were you expecting them to know the framework?

As the saying goes though the last 20% takes 80% of the time.

[datavirtue]

Because the project was big enough to warrant more than one person. I have a whole team surrounding me to handle non-technical/non-development incidentals. Most companies would have had a lot more budgeted and would have pre-hired five devs. Then everything would have moved glacially slow, fulfilling the prophecy that five devs were needed.

[ZeroSolstice]

  > Because the project was big enough to warrant more than one person.

But based on what, the scope? If you weren't familiar with the tech stack how would you gauge that? I understand people can conceptualize frameworks at a high-level.

  > I have a whole team surrounding me to handle non-technical/non-development incidentals.

Are these the people finding the junior or (5) devs that would be needed. Do they have experience with the framework to know how to scope the project? The hiring of 1 - 5 developers in-house or even as contractors is a labor intensive process so I'm not really sure companies would have just done it based on an idea of an application. I can see where they might have hired early based on winning a contract but they probably under estimated the work if that was the case or padded the cost to account for ramp-up time.

  > Most companies would have had a lot more budgeted and would have pre-hired five devs.

Maybe you haven't worked places that do spikes or just allow people to develop prototypes without entire scoping documents or hiring people. Also keep an eye on your worth here. If you are saving the company the cost involved in getting (5) more developers then you should be getting a bonus or have decent compensation. A lot people fall in this trap of "saving" the company money as if its their own, its not, and unless you are getting some of that savings you are diluting your current pay and working twice as hard.

  > Then everything would have moved glacially slow, fulfilling the prophecy that five devs were needed.

Yeah this is understood as the "mythicial man month" in terms of things slowing down. Adding the wrong head count is a planning and leadership issue. There is nothing stopping teams from being dynamic at a point but that depends on how long the application is going to be supported. Having (5) people now can spread out the working knowledge and workload enough that "no single" developer is holding up forward progress. If you are having to mentor people on the project or fix mistakes then they are the wrong people or wrong skillset for the team. A leader will be able to convey the issue to management and have people let go or replaced. People don't like to do this but there is no reason to keep a failed process going as we are all professionals. Alternatively people above you have accepted this as part of the application development process, it justifies their job, and are fine with it so getting the work done any faster is just a bonus to them.