5 ms·

> I spent six months working at a Fortune 500 company building a system to give mid-level knowledge workers better access to their data. I've never felt as demo

> I spent six months working at a Fortune 500 company building a system to give mid-level knowledge workers better access to their data. I've never felt as demotivated as I did when I realized that at the end of they day they were just producing PDFs that were immediately archived away without ever being read by another human. I've done that exact project for like 6 giant pharma companies.

selestify 8y ago
Why do companies do this? Why don't they save a lot more money?
- drewrv 8y ago
  The book goes into it a bit. Some of it is status (i.e. people wanting others working under them, even if it's pointless work), other times it's to claim they care about something even if they don't (imagine a company that pretends to care about their employees wellness, they could hire a wellness consultant and ignore the recommendations).
  - dvtv75 8y ago
    My workplace just went through that very thing. We had a company-wide review of employees attitudes, remuneration, equipment, the works. They released a letter telling us they were going to begin a few months later, starting with pay raises and equipment upgrades - and then did nothing. It's a year on from the initial review, and I guess they managed to complete their goal: stave off the riots for a while by letting the minions feel heard.
- adrianratnapala 8y ago
  People might have the goal of saving money. But companies aren't people; they don't really have goals.
  - Florin_Andrei 8y ago
    I would say the bottom line is pretty much the goal for most companies.
    - neltnerb 8y ago
      I'd say that the people who get paid based on the bottom line have that goal. Not their employees, they want to be paid well themselves, and work with people they like, and probably a hundred other things before they worry about the bottom line.
      - volkl48 8y ago
        I'd be curious as to if profit-sharing schemes and the like cause employees to make more fiscally sound decisions. Probably a difficult thing to study, though.
        indigochill 8y ago
        I would guess it would depend on the company. If it's small enough that an employee feels they can have a meaningful impact on the company financials (say, maybe <= 10 people in the company), then I would guess so. If, on the other hand, your company of 500 employees introduces profit-sharing, then there's probably no point to even trying. Too many decision makers pulling in too many politically motivated directions.
        neltnerb 8y ago
        If co-ops are any indication, yes. I like the Mars Trilogy model in theory, where corporations are gradually replaced with small co-ops that are all employee owned, and then they collaborate with other small groups on an ad-hoc basis to get things done. I don't think that's entirely practical, but I do think it's a great outcome to aim for and is far short of socialism.
- ww520 8y ago
  A lot of these are compliance related or audit related.
- 0xfeba 8y ago
  Cronyism, intertia, lack of will. For the latter, putting a spotlight on people's jobs will send a message to all other works.
  - candiodari 8y ago
    ... regulation ... (ie. ability to audit afterwards)
- bryananderson 8y ago
  The problem is that we often think of a company as a single abstract decision-maker. It isn’t, of course. It’s made up of managers who want to look like they’re doing something big so that they gain status and get a pay raise (“I led the company’s first blockchain initiative!”). It’s made up of employees who want to cover their own asses by recommending that a brand-name consultancy be added to their project. And so on. Each individual in a corporation acts in accordance with her or his own incentives, which may or may not be well aligned with those of the company’s shareholders.
  - gutnor 8y ago
    Not disagreeing but there isn't only the negative side (self-promotion, ass-covering). There are people trying and failing. Life happen: acquisition (you or some of your provider), restructuring, negotiation, strategic changes, key person leaving, new people coming, ... all of that produces little bit of inefficiencies in large organisation. That's not dissimilar to the food you buy and throw away, the antique furniture you bought planning to restore but never got to it, the stack of book you wanted to read but other things occupy your time.
  - Thriptic 8y ago
    Similarly, a lot of employees don't really know what the global mission of the company is or what their strategic interests are. I've definitely seen leaders fail to clearly communicate this. When that happens, people fall back to optimizing their local environment or department and that can definitely lead to useless shit or actions which while locally beneficial, actually impede the mission of the company.
    - unavoidable 8y ago
      Most employees don't really care what the global mission of the company or their strategic interests are. It's whether you can get a decent paycheck with some stability while having a semblance of control and balance. The more you work the more this becomes true.
      - 8y ago
- bane 8y ago
  Quite a lot of work that's not immediately obvious as useful is producing defensive material. It's a different story to say "we analyzed a market and decided against pursuing those opportunities because of x, y and z" (an activity that produces lots of shelves full of reports) than to say "we didn't pursue some opportunities and we never bothered to look into it" (an activity that never occurred because nobody was filling shelves with reports). "Give me everything we know about foo" is only possible if somebody has been collecting shelves full of things over time.
  - TeMPOraL 8y ago
    Basically, if someone asks you something, you can throw more PDFs at them than they have patience to read, in order to make them go away?
    - bane 8y ago
      And without the PDFs on a shelf somewhere, you have nothing to throw.
- mr_toad 8y ago
  Step 1: senior management asks for some numbers Step 2: report produced. Management reads the executive summary. Step 3: someone trying to look busy asks for an update. Report is updated manually, because it was never designed to be automated. Step 4: report continues to be produced for years after anyone stops reading it.
  - serpix 8y ago
    Some people get hired between step 3 and 4 and might never make the mental connection to step 1. Step 5. Consultants get hired to digitalise the process of reporting. Now a good consultant can make the leap to step 1 and start redirecting value to something else. A shitty consultant milks the company for $ without ever undermining the sorry people stuck at step 3.

selestify 8y ago

Why do companies do this? Why don't they save a lot more money?

drewrv 8y ago
The book goes into it a bit. Some of it is status (i.e. people wanting others working under them, even if it's pointless work), other times it's to claim they care about something even if they don't (imagine a company that pretends to care about their employees wellness, they could hire a wellness consultant and ignore the recommendations).
- dvtv75 8y ago
  My workplace just went through that very thing. We had a company-wide review of employees attitudes, remuneration, equipment, the works. They released a letter telling us they were going to begin a few months later, starting with pay raises and equipment upgrades - and then did nothing. It's a year on from the initial review, and I guess they managed to complete their goal: stave off the riots for a while by letting the minions feel heard.
adrianratnapala 8y ago
People might have the goal of saving money. But companies aren't people; they don't really have goals.
- Florin_Andrei 8y ago
  I would say the bottom line is pretty much the goal for most companies.
  - neltnerb 8y ago
    I'd say that the people who get paid based on the bottom line have that goal. Not their employees, they want to be paid well themselves, and work with people they like, and probably a hundred other things before they worry about the bottom line.
    - volkl48 8y ago
      I'd be curious as to if profit-sharing schemes and the like cause employees to make more fiscally sound decisions. Probably a difficult thing to study, though.
      - indigochill 8y ago
        I would guess it would depend on the company. If it's small enough that an employee feels they can have a meaningful impact on the company financials (say, maybe <= 10 people in the company), then I would guess so. If, on the other hand, your company of 500 employees introduces profit-sharing, then there's probably no point to even trying. Too many decision makers pulling in too many politically motivated directions.
      - neltnerb 8y ago
        If co-ops are any indication, yes. I like the Mars Trilogy model in theory, where corporations are gradually replaced with small co-ops that are all employee owned, and then they collaborate with other small groups on an ad-hoc basis to get things done. I don't think that's entirely practical, but I do think it's a great outcome to aim for and is far short of socialism.
ww520 8y ago
A lot of these are compliance related or audit related.
0xfeba 8y ago
Cronyism, intertia, lack of will. For the latter, putting a spotlight on people's jobs will send a message to all other works.
- candiodari 8y ago
  ... regulation ... (ie. ability to audit afterwards)
bryananderson 8y ago
The problem is that we often think of a company as a single abstract decision-maker. It isn’t, of course. It’s made up of managers who want to look like they’re doing something big so that they gain status and get a pay raise (“I led the company’s first blockchain initiative!”). It’s made up of employees who want to cover their own asses by recommending that a brand-name consultancy be added to their project. And so on. Each individual in a corporation acts in accordance with her or his own incentives, which may or may not be well aligned with those of the company’s shareholders.
- gutnor 8y ago
  Not disagreeing but there isn't only the negative side (self-promotion, ass-covering). There are people trying and failing. Life happen: acquisition (you or some of your provider), restructuring, negotiation, strategic changes, key person leaving, new people coming, ... all of that produces little bit of inefficiencies in large organisation. That's not dissimilar to the food you buy and throw away, the antique furniture you bought planning to restore but never got to it, the stack of book you wanted to read but other things occupy your time.
- Thriptic 8y ago
  Similarly, a lot of employees don't really know what the global mission of the company is or what their strategic interests are. I've definitely seen leaders fail to clearly communicate this. When that happens, people fall back to optimizing their local environment or department and that can definitely lead to useless shit or actions which while locally beneficial, actually impede the mission of the company.
  - unavoidable 8y ago
    Most employees don't really care what the global mission of the company or their strategic interests are. It's whether you can get a decent paycheck with some stability while having a semblance of control and balance. The more you work the more this becomes true.
    - 8y ago
bane 8y ago
Quite a lot of work that's not immediately obvious as useful is producing defensive material. It's a different story to say "we analyzed a market and decided against pursuing those opportunities because of x, y and z" (an activity that produces lots of shelves full of reports) than to say "we didn't pursue some opportunities and we never bothered to look into it" (an activity that never occurred because nobody was filling shelves with reports). "Give me everything we know about foo" is only possible if somebody has been collecting shelves full of things over time.
- TeMPOraL 8y ago
  Basically, if someone asks you something, you can throw more PDFs at them than they have patience to read, in order to make them go away?
  - bane 8y ago
    And without the PDFs on a shelf somewhere, you have nothing to throw.
mr_toad 8y ago
Step 1: senior management asks for some numbers Step 2: report produced. Management reads the executive summary. Step 3: someone trying to look busy asks for an update. Report is updated manually, because it was never designed to be automated. Step 4: report continues to be produced for years after anyone stops reading it.
- serpix 8y ago
  Some people get hired between step 3 and 4 and might never make the mental connection to step 1. Step 5. Consultants get hired to digitalise the process of reporting. Now a good consultant can make the leap to step 1 and start redirecting value to something else. A shitty consultant milks the company for $ without ever undermining the sorry people stuck at step 3.