Productivity

But What If It’s Not Worth Doing?

by

(This column is posted at www.StevenSavage.com, Steve’s Tumblr, and Pillowfort.  Find out more at my newsletter, and all my social media at my linktr.ee)

OK this isn’t another post on AI exactly. I get it, there’s a lot of talk of AI – hell, I talk about it a lot, usually whenever Ed Zitron goes on a tear or my friends in tech (IE all my friends) discuss it. If I was friends with Ed Zitron, who knows what I’d write.

The funny thing about AI is that it’s about automation. Yes it’s complex. Yes it’s controversial. Yes, it lets you generate pictures of Jesus as a Canadian Mountie (Dudley Do-Unto-Others?). But it’s automation at the end of the day. It’s no different than a clock or a pneumatic delivery system.

And, referencing a conversation I had with friends, when you automate something on the job or at home, let’s ask a question – should you have been doing it anyway?

First, if you get something you have to automate, should it be assigned to you? If something really isn’t part of your portfolio of work, maybe someone else should do it. Yes, this includes things like home tasks and that includes the shelves you have not and almost certainly will not put up.

A painful reality I’ve come to realize is that many people take on tasks someone else can do, and often do better. However due to whatever reason it drifts up to them and of course they stick with it. Worse, the really good people often would be better at it, and maybe even have more time and hurt themselves less.

A need to automate something often says “I don’t need to do it and I may be bad at it” and the task should move up or down or somewhere else. I’m not saying automate, it, I’m saying reassign it – to someone that may automate it anyway, but still.

Secondly, and more importantly, if you have a task that can be automated it’s time to ask if anyone should be doing it period.

Anything really important needs a person, a moral authority to make a decision. You have both the decision making skills and the ethical ability to make the right decision. Automation certainly doesn’t have the ethical element, and if it doesn’t need your decision making skills . . . why are you or anyone doing it.

The task might be unnecessary. It could – and trust me I see this a lot – be the result of other automatic generation or other bad choices. It may be a signoff no one needs to sign off on, an automatic update you don’t need to be updated on, or who knows what else. I honestly think a lot of work is generated by other automatic processes and choices that could just bypass people anyway.

But there’s also the chance the task is unneeded, shouldn’t exist, or really a bad idea. Look if the task is assigned to you, a competent individual with good morals, and you want to automate it maybe it just should never have existed. Much as good Agile methods are about making sure you don’t do unneeded work, process is the same.

Whenever something has to be automated, it’s a good time to ask “why did it come to me anyway?” Because the answer may save you time automating, instead letting you hand it off, change how things work, or just ignore it.

And that’s not just AI. That’s anything.

Steven Savage

Efficiency Fallacy

by

(This column is posted at www.StevenSavage.com, Steve’s Tumblr, and Pillowfort.  Find out more at my newsletter, and all my social media at my linktr.ee)

“Efficiency” has been in the air a lot in the world of business, technology, and now government. I find this amusing because after 30 years in IT I’m more in the “keep hoping” mode on achieving real efficiency in organizations. Most people don’t think about what efficiency really is, but boy are they ready to try and achieve what they don’t understand.

The illusion is usually somewhere in a Daft Punk-esque dream of “better, faster, cheaper.” We will somehow achieve efficiency that means everything is of higher quality, gets to us faster, and costs less. When you put it that way, it starts to sound suspiciously like marketing and not actually a plan which is what a lot of efficiency efforts turn out to be.

See, sometimes efficiency as people conceive of it is actually not what they want. Yes, sometimes, better, faster, and cheaper is a terrible goal. However a lot of consultants, politicians, and marketers don’t want to admit it, and in many cases are too deliberately ignorant to understand it.

To illustrate this, let me give an example from computer code. Once I was working with a coder that was pulling their ever-thinning hair out over some legacy code that was incredibly brittle – simple modifications created cascading problems. Upon closer examination, the conclusion was a case of people being “efficient” – to stay on time they’d done all sorts of tricks of half-reusing code, ignoring good long-term choices for the easiest-to-code, and left us a mess.

Totally “efficient” and a total disaster to maintain and easy to break.

Something that works may not be the cheapest, or the fastest, or even the best. However it is reliable, consistent, enduring, and keeps going. You can save money, cut corners, overload what you’re doing but it will break. Efficiency is sometimes bad for actually getting good results because when you’re goal is to save time, money, or whatever you don’t ask will it work and keep working.

If you aim for better over some single-number driven measure of efficiency – more stable code, a better process, have higher standards for your company – you will probably get gains in efficiency anyway. Your company database not crashing saves money. Not having lawsuits due to better testing of a product is good. Efficiency sometimes comes from you know, doing things well.

I feel we’ve created a cult of efficiency in America. Maybe it’s also part of our weird health craze trends or a way to cope with economic differences. Perhaps it’s some malignant leftover part of the Protestant Work Ethic. But I think we’ve really overdone it because efficiency may not be what you want – or the only thing.

In closing, let me talk about another traumatizing event in my long career. A project I was assisting with once had employed a contractor who had software that gave answers perfectly. A quick test revealed they’d basically made software that could only past the test.

It was very efficient in its own way, and absolutely totally wrong.

Steven Savage

Yes, We Need Bureaucrats

by

(This column is posted at www.StevenSavage.com, Steve’s Tumblr, and Pillowfort.  Find out more at my newsletter, and all my social media at my linktr.ee)

One thing I hear a lot is “we don’t need bureaucrats.” Now I’ve certainly been frustrated by bureaucracy – what do you think inspired this column – but I also know it’s needed. The problem is not bureaucracy, but it’s how we approach it.

Any complex system – a government, school, play, hospital, etc. is going to have things that need to get done. Orders and record-keeping, tracking and validating, all those everyday things that are important. There are also standards to be followed, and when it comes to say FDA validation or security assessments, you want to get those important – but often boring – things done.

Such things need bureaucracy and bureaucrats. Someone has to pay attention, shuffle the papers, fill out the checkboxes, and triple-check the forms that triple-ensure something isn’t going to kill you. Not everyone can do that – and I say this as someone who is sort of a bureaucrat, a Project Manager.

A bureaucrat provides, however abstract, a moral authority in a complex, boring, and specific situation. As much as you may not want to Do The Paperwork, the paperwork has a point as does the person doing it. Someone is responsible, if kind of abstract from it.

The thing is when we pay attention to bureaucracy, people usually see two things:

First, people see these bureaucratic processes but don’t understand them. Because they don’t understand them they think they’re useless, or pointless, or a burden. Bureaucracy, much like IT setups, often has to be turned off before people notice they need it. In fact, many people’s frustration with bureaucracy comes when it breaks because they didn’t notice it.

Secondly, people don’t think about improving bureaucracy or realize people are trying to make it more effective. Trust me, bureaucrats do ask how to make things run better, but that takes time, needs support, and may not be obvious. Just recently, as of this writing, I found out how one person I knew had completely overhauled an entire validation process, and I hadn’t known even though I worked with them for a year.

We don’t see how much good bureaucracy does or how it improves. When a process fanatic like me misses it, yeah, we all do.

Steven Savage