If the schedule is in increments longer than a week (five work days), per person, the schedule is not detailed enough.  Letting people run without a schedule checkpoint weekly is risking their being off by as much as a week.  Compound that by all the people on the project and the schedule is far too fuzzy.

This is such a key issue that some people insist on even smaller increments (2-3 days).  Whatever the granularity, the key is to ensure that the schedule is accurate to the amount of time you’re willing to slip.

(the part above by Chris Williams)

As an aside - sometimes the best thing is to think about the people involved a little differently. Some people get incredible synergy.  When we did the e2000 version of Outlook web access we grouped 2 of the developers together & had them account for being equal to 3 people.  We called them jimbob because one was Jim & the other Bob.  In management reviews people wanted ot know who this jimbob guy was because he was doing so much work. 

I've always believed in the 2 in a box concept - when the skills are correctly matched, 2 people can do a load more than you'd think.  In fact, all the way along in my career i have searched this out.  i now try to have multiple work relationships like this - the span can really cover a load of ground.  it really comes to finding people who work like you do, but have different skills but is really based on trust/respect.

/i

p.s. I turned off the ability to have feedback published automatically.  For some reason people are putting spam feedbacks in there.  i've been deleting them - i am not sure why anyone thinks that is a good method - but i bet they just have little apps that walk blogs & put some innocuous comment with weird urls.  So to the blog spammers, no posts for you!