4 ms·

Why is there no filter on the intake? It was proposed, but declined by management as "too costly". Why is it too costly? Because cutting visible costs is perce

Why is there no filter on the intake? It was proposed, but declined by management as "too costly". Why is it too costly? Because cutting visible costs is perceived as saving money and therefore Good, whereas prevention and maintenance are perceived as unnecessary, because Bad Stuff Just Happens Regardless. Why? Because people suck at statistics ("if we can't eliminate a risk altogether, there's no point in trying, let's just forever keep fixing the fallout") and because Fixing Broken Stuff Is Someone Else's Budget, Let's Pass The Buck. (Or at least, that's the way things tend to turn out when you decide to go beyond the immediate cause-and-effect)

adrianratnapala 11y ago
I was also disappointed that the example list didn't get into people issues. But it is not as simple as prevention vs. cost-cutting. In any place, there are thousands of things that might prevent a problem, but which of them are worth doing? One of many strategies for selecting the right precautions is an evolutionary one: fix the ones that caused problems in the past.
- coredog64 11y ago
  This. My management is like generals fighting the last war. They continue to push process as an answer to anything that has caused an outage instead of reworking the process that we already have.
  - Piskvorrr 11y ago
    Unlike the Red Queen problem of arms race, "fighting the previous war" could help with one class of support problems (not always, not all problems). "Hmm, we've been here before, we know how to fix this; plus we should make it harder to get here again by accident."
    - Bartweiss 11y ago
      I think the big question is whether you ever win the previous war. If every problem adds permanent overhead ("add a check for that issue in the review process") then you're slowly losing ground. If problems get solved ("automate that step so no one forgets it"), you're making progress even if you don't anticipate issues.
  - groby_b 11y ago
    Well, if you reworked the process, would it at least win the last war? Because if the "new" process reintroduces known points of fragility, you're guarding against potential problems at the expense of known problems. It might be worth asking "why" of them. :)
jerf 11y ago
Just as "Five" is really just a rule of thumb as pointed out by other people, "Why" is really just a rule of thumb too. "What can we do to prevent the underlying problem?" just isn't as catchy, but it's closer to what you should be really asking. "People suck at statistics" is not an answer to that question. "Train people" is an answer, but only an answer. You've also got "something to make us more robust to bad statistics" and, no sarcasm, "trust the statistics less in the future", and several other such things. Another one I'd consider, for instance, is that if some set of statistics is truly bringing negative value to the process, stop collecting them. Also, "we've got fundamental management issues" can be a valid answer. If you're in an engineering environment but your management isn't able to work that way, try to do something about it. In the end, it is not out of the question for the process to produce "I need a different job", though I think one has a professional obligation to at least try to fix the underlying problems first. This is a process in which neither blind idealism nor blind cynicism is the road to success. If you're just getting cynical answers, that's not a reflection of the process, that's a reflection of your cynicism being too strong. Tone it down. Don't get rid of it. I would never suggest getting rid of it. But tone it down. And get more specific than "people generally suck" or anything that is simply a variant on that.
- Piskvorrr 11y ago
  Of course it's not an answer - just asking "why" gets you turtles all the way down, and "stop after five steps" may halt you with a stack that's too shallow; as you say, it's a rule of thumb. And now we're finally getting somewhere :) Cynicism can be a tool, a catalyst - "these are all the things that are unfixable, because Eeeeverything Sucks" is a good set for asking "are they all, really? Are there those that are only hard to fix, and which of them are worth fixing?" As you say, it's rare that there's a single, clear-cut answer for an issue, especially when it's not purely technical one. I didn't intend my reply as a rant, and surely didn't intend it to mean "everything is broken, get out of here" as a solution.
  - jerf 11y ago
    To some extent I write to remind myself... I too tend towards the excessive cynicism rather than the insufficient. "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of Knuth" may be a true statement, but it does tend to lead to fewer actionable ideas.

adrianratnapala 11y ago

I was also disappointed that the example list didn't get into people issues. But it is not as simple as prevention vs. cost-cutting. In any place, there are thousands of things that might prevent a problem, but which of them are worth doing? One of many strategies for selecting the right precautions is an evolutionary one: fix the ones that caused problems in the past.

coredog64 11y ago
This. My management is like generals fighting the last war. They continue to push process as an answer to anything that has caused an outage instead of reworking the process that we already have.
- Piskvorrr 11y ago
  Unlike the Red Queen problem of arms race, "fighting the previous war" could help with one class of support problems (not always, not all problems). "Hmm, we've been here before, we know how to fix this; plus we should make it harder to get here again by accident."
  - Bartweiss 11y ago
    I think the big question is whether you ever win the previous war. If every problem adds permanent overhead ("add a check for that issue in the review process") then you're slowly losing ground. If problems get solved ("automate that step so no one forgets it"), you're making progress even if you don't anticipate issues.
- groby_b 11y ago
  Well, if you reworked the process, would it at least win the last war? Because if the "new" process reintroduces known points of fragility, you're guarding against potential problems at the expense of known problems. It might be worth asking "why" of them. :)

jerf 11y ago

Just as "Five" is really just a rule of thumb as pointed out by other people, "Why" is really just a rule of thumb too. "What can we do to prevent the underlying problem?" just isn't as catchy, but it's closer to what you should be really asking. "People suck at statistics" is not an answer to that question. "Train people" is an answer, but only an answer. You've also got "something to make us more robust to bad statistics" and, no sarcasm, "trust the statistics less in the future", and several other such things. Another one I'd consider, for instance, is that if some set of statistics is truly bringing negative value to the process, stop collecting them. Also, "we've got fundamental management issues" can be a valid answer. If you're in an engineering environment but your management isn't able to work that way, try to do something about it. In the end, it is not out of the question for the process to produce "I need a different job", though I think one has a professional obligation to at least try to fix the underlying problems first. This is a process in which neither blind idealism nor blind cynicism is the road to success. If you're just getting cynical answers, that's not a reflection of the process, that's a reflection of your cynicism being too strong. Tone it down. Don't get rid of it. I would never suggest getting rid of it. But tone it down. And get more specific than "people generally suck" or anything that is simply a variant on that.

Piskvorrr 11y ago
Of course it's not an answer - just asking "why" gets you turtles all the way down, and "stop after five steps" may halt you with a stack that's too shallow; as you say, it's a rule of thumb. And now we're finally getting somewhere :) Cynicism can be a tool, a catalyst - "these are all the things that are unfixable, because Eeeeverything Sucks" is a good set for asking "are they all, really? Are there those that are only hard to fix, and which of them are worth fixing?" As you say, it's rare that there's a single, clear-cut answer for an issue, especially when it's not purely technical one. I didn't intend my reply as a rant, and surely didn't intend it to mean "everything is broken, get out of here" as a solution.
- jerf 11y ago
  To some extent I write to remind myself... I too tend towards the excessive cynicism rather than the insufficient. "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of Knuth" may be a true statement, but it does tend to lead to fewer actionable ideas.