4 ms·

But a company generally doesn't want diversity, they want predictability. Predictability as to how fast and when something will be done, predictability on the q

by daemin 11y ago

But a company generally doesn't want diversity, they want predictability. Predictability as to how fast and when something will be done, predictability on the quality of the work. Sure having thought diversity in solving problems is a good thing, but look at how complicated software project scheduling is already.

p4wnc6 11y ago
This usually applies to commodity work, and there's a long history of Taylorism. It makes a lot less sense in knowledge work, where the problems are not standardized and often solutions are unknown. In these cases, the uniformity desired through these surveillance measures makes no sense. It's fundamentally not the same as a McDonald's burger, no matter how much management wishes so. Worse still, even if you did want homogeneity of software design output, the best way to get it is to give workers conditions in which the environment supports their productivity. Taylorized fast-food kitchens support certain types of productivity and are a rational response to that business need. But it's more of a cargo cult superficiality to try to impose the same idea on a knowledge domain where quiet and privacy are fundamental to the product. On the other hand, if instead of productivity the employer cares more about having a visually fancy-looking space, as a means for status signaling, or cares about having a good staff on-paper to heighten an acquihire valuation, then open-plan makes more sense. It's bad for the employees though, because of course the employer can't admit to hiring people just for status, show, or credential, so they have to at least feign concern over productivity, thus putting knowledge workers in the bind of having to be productive in a fundamentally anti-productive setting.
- daemin 11y ago
  The whole having to be productive in an otherwise anti-productivity environment seems like some sort of weird hazing ritual. Though I still think that regardless what job one is doing (knowledge work or factory), that subconsciously the company wants predictability. So maybe putting people in an environment where it is anti-productive puts people of all skills at the same basic predictable level?
  - p4wnc6 11y ago
    That is a good point. I had never considered that they would actually Harrison Bergeron their own people, but it's entirely plausible. If they want predictability more than output, it would make sense, and then they extract value mostly just from your credential and your organizational fealty.
- dreamfactory2 11y ago
  The entire offshoring software industry is already Taylorised. I'm not saying it's good or efficient but it is the reality of large software projects. The architects are onshore and have never coded in their lives. They draw boxes on whiteboards and feed UML to offshore dev 'factories'. That UML gets decomposed so that you will have factory lines of developers producing classes (sometimes just methods) in isolation. LOC is frequently used as a productivity measure by their management. It's about as far from software as craft as you can get.

by daemin 11y ago

p4wnc6 11y ago

This usually applies to commodity work, and there's a long history of Taylorism. It makes a lot less sense in knowledge work, where the problems are not standardized and often solutions are unknown. In these cases, the uniformity desired through these surveillance measures makes no sense. It's fundamentally not the same as a McDonald's burger, no matter how much management wishes so. Worse still, even if you did want homogeneity of software design output, the best way to get it is to give workers conditions in which the environment supports their productivity. Taylorized fast-food kitchens support certain types of productivity and are a rational response to that business need. But it's more of a cargo cult superficiality to try to impose the same idea on a knowledge domain where quiet and privacy are fundamental to the product. On the other hand, if instead of productivity the employer cares more about having a visually fancy-looking space, as a means for status signaling, or cares about having a good staff on-paper to heighten an acquihire valuation, then open-plan makes more sense. It's bad for the employees though, because of course the employer can't admit to hiring people just for status, show, or credential, so they have to at least feign concern over productivity, thus putting knowledge workers in the bind of having to be productive in a fundamentally anti-productive setting.

daemin 11y ago
The whole having to be productive in an otherwise anti-productivity environment seems like some sort of weird hazing ritual. Though I still think that regardless what job one is doing (knowledge work or factory), that subconsciously the company wants predictability. So maybe putting people in an environment where it is anti-productive puts people of all skills at the same basic predictable level?
- p4wnc6 11y ago
  That is a good point. I had never considered that they would actually Harrison Bergeron their own people, but it's entirely plausible. If they want predictability more than output, it would make sense, and then they extract value mostly just from your credential and your organizational fealty.
dreamfactory2 11y ago
The entire offshoring software industry is already Taylorised. I'm not saying it's good or efficient but it is the reality of large software projects. The architects are onshore and have never coded in their lives. They draw boxes on whiteboards and feed UML to offshore dev 'factories'. That UML gets decomposed so that you will have factory lines of developers producing classes (sometimes just methods) in isolation. LOC is frequently used as a productivity measure by their management. It's about as far from software as craft as you can get.