4 ms·

Hmmm. It's a lot easier to automatically manage boxes named "server001" than a list of random names that constantly has to be maintained. I bet you could save

Hmmm. It's a lot easier to automatically manage boxes named "server001" than a list of random names that constantly has to be maintained. I bet you could save $10,000 a year by eliminating the arbitrary names and calling them ServerXXX. Sorry for the attempt at a witty reply. Let's start again. Agreed, there are efficiencies. The point of the article is that when you institute changes like this, you may create unintended consequences like a mass exodus of people who liked working for a company where the servers were named after Muppet characters and associate "Server042" with a company where professional managers demand cover sheets for their TPS reports. Before making such a change, ask yourself this question: Is what I'm doing good for the company?

jodrellblank 17y ago
> Before making such a change, ask yourself this question: Is what I'm doing good for the company? If you knew what the consequences were going to be then they wouldn't be unanticipated, but if you didn't know then you couldn't accurately answer the question. Aren't you just asking people to 'know the unknown unknowns' and never make poor decisions? Wouldn't it be a more realistic suggestion to ask them to ask "Was this good for the company and if not, should we revert to how it was before?"
- gridspy 17y ago
  It is very rare for any individual to completely reverse their previous decision, especially when the results of that decision are subjective, delayed and hard to measure. By the time management realises that soda should have been free, the opinions of the top engineers have irreversibly changed.
- mnemonicsloth 17y ago
  It's an Office Space reference. In the movie, the PHBs hold a meeting in which they solemnly instruct all their employees to ask "Is what I'm doing good for the company?" before they do anything. The audience rolls its eyes in sympathy, for the reasons you've pointed out here.
  - jodrellblank 17y ago
    You don't roll your eyes at Office Space because you think "oh no, how will the employees know about the unintended consequences?! What a silly request." You sigh and roll your eyes because it's a patronising request which stamps the bosses authority and makes it clear that the boss thinks all the employees are a bit slow. (Or perhaps because you think it should be up to the boss to decide what's good for the company then organise the employees to do it, and by asking the employees to do that he's trying to avoid work by pushing his job onto the employees while still keeping his position and salary). The parent post I was responding to was suggesting "try to see the unexpected consequences" and I was countering "that's like trying to find all the bugs - you'll never know when you've finished; more helpful would be managerial humility and willingness to notice negative results and revert the changes".
- raganwald 17y ago
  Actually, I quoted that line because I believe that while resignations are an unintended consequence, they are easily forseen by any manager who stops trying to achieve local maxima and thinks of global maxima. While the quote is funny in the context of the movie, it's a perfectly sensible question to ask on a regular basis: It's a way of reminding yourself to step back and think big picture. Which is what disturbs me about the story. A CFO is paid to think big picture, to confer with the CTO about morale, and so forth. In a well-run company I would expect a middle manager to suggest quashing free drinks and the CFO to demur after conferring with colleagues. Given the story as told, I wonder if an Engineering-Business war was breaking out and if the CFO new exactly what was going to happen.
ramanujan 17y ago
I think automation is key to any startup that wants to punch above its weight. I kind of think that insisting on "venus" and "mercury" for server names is like calling your variables fgyt, asdf, and ytrh in a for loop. Naming is important and needs to be done with care for reuse and readability by people. Am quite surprised that people see this as linked to sodas and drinks. Those sodas are cheap productivity wins. So is systematic/meaningful naming. (Perhaps this is the open vs. free software debate. The open source POV is that free sodas are good because they increase productivity, in ways that are not obvious in the short term but no less real. If they decreased productivity that'd be a different matter. The free software guys are more ideological about things. )
dabent 17y ago
>Is what I'm doing good for the company? http://media.truckblog.com/ai/2008/3555.jpg http://media.truckblog.com/ai/2008/3555.jpg

jodrellblank 17y ago

> Before making such a change, ask yourself this question: Is what I'm doing good for the company? If you knew what the consequences were going to be then they wouldn't be unanticipated, but if you didn't know then you couldn't accurately answer the question. Aren't you just asking people to 'know the unknown unknowns' and never make poor decisions? Wouldn't it be a more realistic suggestion to ask them to ask "Was this good for the company and if not, should we revert to how it was before?"

gridspy 17y ago
It is very rare for any individual to completely reverse their previous decision, especially when the results of that decision are subjective, delayed and hard to measure. By the time management realises that soda should have been free, the opinions of the top engineers have irreversibly changed.
mnemonicsloth 17y ago
It's an Office Space reference. In the movie, the PHBs hold a meeting in which they solemnly instruct all their employees to ask "Is what I'm doing good for the company?" before they do anything. The audience rolls its eyes in sympathy, for the reasons you've pointed out here.
- jodrellblank 17y ago
  You don't roll your eyes at Office Space because you think "oh no, how will the employees know about the unintended consequences?! What a silly request." You sigh and roll your eyes because it's a patronising request which stamps the bosses authority and makes it clear that the boss thinks all the employees are a bit slow. (Or perhaps because you think it should be up to the boss to decide what's good for the company then organise the employees to do it, and by asking the employees to do that he's trying to avoid work by pushing his job onto the employees while still keeping his position and salary). The parent post I was responding to was suggesting "try to see the unexpected consequences" and I was countering "that's like trying to find all the bugs - you'll never know when you've finished; more helpful would be managerial humility and willingness to notice negative results and revert the changes".
raganwald 17y ago
Actually, I quoted that line because I believe that while resignations are an unintended consequence, they are easily forseen by any manager who stops trying to achieve local maxima and thinks of global maxima. While the quote is funny in the context of the movie, it's a perfectly sensible question to ask on a regular basis: It's a way of reminding yourself to step back and think big picture. Which is what disturbs me about the story. A CFO is paid to think big picture, to confer with the CTO about morale, and so forth. In a well-run company I would expect a middle manager to suggest quashing free drinks and the CFO to demur after conferring with colleagues. Given the story as told, I wonder if an Engineering-Business war was breaking out and if the CFO new exactly what was going to happen.

ramanujan 17y ago

I think automation is key to any startup that wants to punch above its weight. I kind of think that insisting on "venus" and "mercury" for server names is like calling your variables fgyt, asdf, and ytrh in a for loop. Naming is important and needs to be done with care for reuse and readability by people. Am quite surprised that people see this as linked to sodas and drinks. Those sodas are cheap productivity wins. So is systematic/meaningful naming. (Perhaps this is the open vs. free software debate. The open source POV is that free sodas are good because they increase productivity, in ways that are not obvious in the short term but no less real. If they decreased productivity that'd be a different matter. The free software guys are more ideological about things. )

dabent 17y ago

>Is what I'm doing good for the company? http://media.truckblog.com/ai/2008/3555.jpg http://media.truckblog.com/ai/2008/3555.jpg