4 ms·

These kind of tech has always been marketed to enterprises under various ruses. It's persistent. If the company happens to have immature control freaks in decis

by throw2016 9y ago

These kind of tech has always been marketed to enterprises under various ruses. It's persistent. If the company happens to have immature control freaks in decision maker roles then they manage to sell. Ultimately its culture and the decision makers get to decide. Monitoring is of course downwards and those making the decision do not get to be monitored in this intrusive fashion.

lotsofpulp 9y ago
Except we’re getting better at quantifying, and the better we are at it, the more we can optimize. Factory workers didn’t use to be measured, but then they were. And now they’re automated. Many aspects of white collar jobs are not impervious to this either. As we move up the chain, we’ll see that even more can be measured and optimized, even for the decision makers. Just make sure you keep climbing! Edit: it also helps when firing people, as you can make a list of metrics and then make goals that are just out of reach for bottom 50% of performers. Then when you need to fire people and deny unemployment, you point to the metrics they were failing and you have a valid cause to terminate for lack of performance, thus saving you money on unemployment insurance premiums.
- throw2016 9y ago
  This is a bit of a straw man. You don't need surveillance technology for this. If a worker is expected to make 10 pieces of an item per hour its easy for managers to verify this. For a knowledge or creative worker it's similarly easy to verify expected performance. This is not new, workers have been measured for performance everywhere since manufacturing and corporate jobs began. If we ignore that for a moment, the point you are making applies to management too, yet this tech is guaranteed to not be used for management where things and outcomes are left 'more fuzzy'. Why? How about we apply it to governance with complete transparency to the electorate. Nope, not going to happen. Because its exploitative and intrusive and will only be applied to the powerless lowest who have no choice.
  - pjc50 9y ago
    > For a knowledge or creative worker it's similarly easy to verify expected performance. No it really isn't! Coding performance metrics are a wasteland of failed techniques.
    - greglindahl 9y ago
      ObDilbert: http://dilbert.com/strip/1995-11-13 http://dilbert.com/strip/1995-11-13 "I'm gonna write me a new minivan this afternoon!"
    - Bartweiss 9y ago
      Hence, I think, the rise of judging programmers on business outcomes. Revenue increases aren't a great metric for programmers (no one has a damn clue how to quantify tech debt and futureproofing), but at least they aren't actively destructive. Similarly, "story point velocity" and the like aren't tied to anything intrinsic, but at least they can sometimes be used as a predictor of quality. Meanwhile the history of the field is one of judging programmers on bugs fixed, lines written, commit frequency, or a hundred other standards that are only perverse incentives. Most aren't even Goodhart's law issues, because they weren't predictive before they became targets!
  - SJWDisagree111 9y ago
    Funny how the simple truth summarizes issues like this. How about we apply it to governance with complete transparency to the electorate. Nope, not going to happen. Because its exploitative and intrusive and will only be applied to the powerless lowest who have no choice.
  - lotsofpulp 9y ago
    Anecdotally, I've seen plenty of managers subjected to their own set of metrics. They might be able to resist it longer, but the equity owners aren't going to just give them a pass. It's always a question of will the benefits be worth the cost, and as soon as it is, the axe will come down. I don't agree that creative workers have similarly easy to verify metrics, even now. However, with the ability to broadly track information, what is now possible is to view the distributions of output so that over time, an individual loses the ability to provide excuses, because chances are if your constantly in the tail end, then it's probably worth it for the organization to be rid of you. I would love it if could apply this transparency to our governance, but obviously those with power will oppose it, and those without will have to fight for it. It's just the nature of things. Obfuscation makes it easier to arbitrage (make excess profits, i.e. have more power than others), so it is to be expected that should continue.
lb1lf 9y ago
> Monitoring is of course downwards and those making the decision do not get to be monitored in this intrusive fashion. -Allegedly true story from the DDR (GDR to you anglophones): Once citizens could start asking to see what the former East German state had on them, Erich Mielke (Head of the Stasi/the GDR KGB equivalent) asked to see his file. Presumably, he figured that someone, somewhere, watched the watchmen.

lotsofpulp 9y ago

Except we’re getting better at quantifying, and the better we are at it, the more we can optimize. Factory workers didn’t use to be measured, but then they were. And now they’re automated. Many aspects of white collar jobs are not impervious to this either. As we move up the chain, we’ll see that even more can be measured and optimized, even for the decision makers. Just make sure you keep climbing! Edit: it also helps when firing people, as you can make a list of metrics and then make goals that are just out of reach for bottom 50% of performers. Then when you need to fire people and deny unemployment, you point to the metrics they were failing and you have a valid cause to terminate for lack of performance, thus saving you money on unemployment insurance premiums.

throw2016 9y ago
This is a bit of a straw man. You don't need surveillance technology for this. If a worker is expected to make 10 pieces of an item per hour its easy for managers to verify this. For a knowledge or creative worker it's similarly easy to verify expected performance. This is not new, workers have been measured for performance everywhere since manufacturing and corporate jobs began. If we ignore that for a moment, the point you are making applies to management too, yet this tech is guaranteed to not be used for management where things and outcomes are left 'more fuzzy'. Why? How about we apply it to governance with complete transparency to the electorate. Nope, not going to happen. Because its exploitative and intrusive and will only be applied to the powerless lowest who have no choice.
- pjc50 9y ago
  > For a knowledge or creative worker it's similarly easy to verify expected performance. No it really isn't! Coding performance metrics are a wasteland of failed techniques.
  - greglindahl 9y ago
    ObDilbert: http://dilbert.com/strip/1995-11-13 http://dilbert.com/strip/1995-11-13 "I'm gonna write me a new minivan this afternoon!"
  - Bartweiss 9y ago
    Hence, I think, the rise of judging programmers on business outcomes. Revenue increases aren't a great metric for programmers (no one has a damn clue how to quantify tech debt and futureproofing), but at least they aren't actively destructive. Similarly, "story point velocity" and the like aren't tied to anything intrinsic, but at least they can sometimes be used as a predictor of quality. Meanwhile the history of the field is one of judging programmers on bugs fixed, lines written, commit frequency, or a hundred other standards that are only perverse incentives. Most aren't even Goodhart's law issues, because they weren't predictive before they became targets!
- SJWDisagree111 9y ago
  Funny how the simple truth summarizes issues like this. How about we apply it to governance with complete transparency to the electorate. Nope, not going to happen. Because its exploitative and intrusive and will only be applied to the powerless lowest who have no choice.
- lotsofpulp 9y ago
  Anecdotally, I've seen plenty of managers subjected to their own set of metrics. They might be able to resist it longer, but the equity owners aren't going to just give them a pass. It's always a question of will the benefits be worth the cost, and as soon as it is, the axe will come down. I don't agree that creative workers have similarly easy to verify metrics, even now. However, with the ability to broadly track information, what is now possible is to view the distributions of output so that over time, an individual loses the ability to provide excuses, because chances are if your constantly in the tail end, then it's probably worth it for the organization to be rid of you. I would love it if could apply this transparency to our governance, but obviously those with power will oppose it, and those without will have to fight for it. It's just the nature of things. Obfuscation makes it easier to arbitrage (make excess profits, i.e. have more power than others), so it is to be expected that should continue.

lb1lf 9y ago

> Monitoring is of course downwards and those making the decision do not get to be monitored in this intrusive fashion. -Allegedly true story from the DDR (GDR to you anglophones): Once citizens could start asking to see what the former East German state had on them, Erich Mielke (Head of the Stasi/the GDR KGB equivalent) asked to see his file. Presumably, he figured that someone, somewhere, watched the watchmen.