I am aware of that book. I considered referencing it in my earlier comments.

I don't know how I can my my point more clear.

If a manager shoves in more workers and slows things down, they are failing at their job.

They are worse than useless.

Because someone useless would take the extra budget, not hire anyone, and not slow down the work. Perhaps they would waste it in vegas.

I am saying nothing that contradicts that book. Just two simple points:

1. More resources only slow down a project when they are misused. They are never inherently bad.

2. It's not even hard to speed up work on security bugs, because each bugfix is a different project and can have its own dedicated team.

Please actually point out something I said that was wrong, instead of making vague references.

My point wasn't that more money itself induces potential slowness, but added infrastructure & scope that surround it (not necessarily even in the same department) often can.

Ignoring more money is pretty unlikely to be an option as a whole, and inefficiencies generally cascade down to some extent.

Other departments matter in some ways, but bugfixing can be self-contained and mostly avoid slowdowns.

But even more important is that these outside slowdown effects are pretty minor. If this was software development then you might have no recourse and you'd be somewhat slower overall. But this is handling many many independent projects. You can hire more teams without having man-month problems, and then handle bugs efficiently.

>Ignoring more money is pretty unlikely to be an option as a whole, and inefficiencies generally cascade down to some extent.

Again, I blame management. A nice sturdy cardboard box as a manager is impervious to social effects from other departments, and it can soak up extra cash too.

I expect anyone being paid to manage to do a better job than a box. Not to go along with the flow uncritically.