3 ms·

> giving it a cool buzzword They called it the obvious word in their own language, it's only a cool buzzword to non-native speakers reading English Wikipedia.

> giving it a cool buzzword They called it the obvious word in their own language, it's only a cool buzzword to non-native speakers reading English Wikipedia. > systemized common sense Of course. And still businesses are full of systemic problems, where common sense fails. Just like well written programs are just "systemized instructions", but most programs are buggy and brittle. Clarity in defining and executing on simple concepts is worth a lot.

wlesieutre 8y ago
>They called it the obvious word in their own language, it's only a cool buzzword to non-native speakers reading English Wikipedia. Same place "Kanban" came from
philwelch 8y ago
> They called it the obvious word in their own language, it's only a cool buzzword to non-native speakers reading English Wikipedia. I'm more making fun of the American business consultants who are going to try and cargo-cult this idea and make it sound more impressive than it actually is by not using the already commonplace American English idiom that describes the same concept. The term "poka-yoke" seems to date from the 1960's, while "foolproof" is well-attested before WWII, which makes me recklessly speculate that the term is likely a translation from the English in the first place. Since Japan sought out and received a lot of guidance and advice from Americans about rebuilding their manufacturing industry (which is logical, given the fact that we more or less won the war by out-manufacturing them), I wouldn't be surprised if someone casually used the word "foolproof", and merely translating the idiom introduced the underlying concept. (Kind of like how we stole "earworm" and "punchable face" from German idioms). And hey, maybe the extra step of introducing a new foreign idiom, or even reintroducing an idiom that we already have, is valuable because it puts a bright flashing light on it. Buzzwords only become buzzwords because there's a substance behind them, it's just when the bright flashing light outshines the substance that it becomes a problem. > Clarity in defining and executing on simple concepts is worth a lot. See, that's the thing, it's execution. You can talk about foolproofing your processes and your tools, and half the time you end up getting in people's way as often as you prevent any actual errors, because no matter how well you foolproof something, there's always some fool out there who's even smarter than you are when it comes to discovering new and creative ways to screw things up. But the other half of the time, not doing it is going to just completely burn you. The judgment of differentiating those two cases from each other is the valuable part, not just the concept of error-proofing (or poka-yoke) in the first place.
- Tyrek 8y ago
  In a large part, it's because Western business practices suffer from a lot of ego. I suspect consulting has a lot of cargo-culting because you need to wrap things up in a foreign veneer in order to implement certain optimizations without outright calling someone an idiot.
  - philwelch 8y ago
    I wonder if that's why American manufacturers didn't listen to Deming in the first place, until after he taught Japanese manufacturers how to kick their asses.
  - ycombobreaker 8y ago
    Maybe that is a good reason why "foolproofing" is not a great way to describe these process improvements. It is pretty condescending to label somebody as a fool for anynsingle erroneous action!

wlesieutre 8y ago

>They called it the obvious word in their own language, it's only a cool buzzword to non-native speakers reading English Wikipedia. Same place "Kanban" came from

philwelch 8y ago

> They called it the obvious word in their own language, it's only a cool buzzword to non-native speakers reading English Wikipedia. I'm more making fun of the American business consultants who are going to try and cargo-cult this idea and make it sound more impressive than it actually is by not using the already commonplace American English idiom that describes the same concept. The term "poka-yoke" seems to date from the 1960's, while "foolproof" is well-attested before WWII, which makes me recklessly speculate that the term is likely a translation from the English in the first place. Since Japan sought out and received a lot of guidance and advice from Americans about rebuilding their manufacturing industry (which is logical, given the fact that we more or less won the war by out-manufacturing them), I wouldn't be surprised if someone casually used the word "foolproof", and merely translating the idiom introduced the underlying concept. (Kind of like how we stole "earworm" and "punchable face" from German idioms). And hey, maybe the extra step of introducing a new foreign idiom, or even reintroducing an idiom that we already have, is valuable because it puts a bright flashing light on it. Buzzwords only become buzzwords because there's a substance behind them, it's just when the bright flashing light outshines the substance that it becomes a problem. > Clarity in defining and executing on simple concepts is worth a lot. See, that's the thing, it's execution. You can talk about foolproofing your processes and your tools, and half the time you end up getting in people's way as often as you prevent any actual errors, because no matter how well you foolproof something, there's always some fool out there who's even smarter than you are when it comes to discovering new and creative ways to screw things up. But the other half of the time, not doing it is going to just completely burn you. The judgment of differentiating those two cases from each other is the valuable part, not just the concept of error-proofing (or poka-yoke) in the first place.

Tyrek 8y ago
In a large part, it's because Western business practices suffer from a lot of ego. I suspect consulting has a lot of cargo-culting because you need to wrap things up in a foreign veneer in order to implement certain optimizations without outright calling someone an idiot.
- philwelch 8y ago
  I wonder if that's why American manufacturers didn't listen to Deming in the first place, until after he taught Japanese manufacturers how to kick their asses.
- ycombobreaker 8y ago
  Maybe that is a good reason why "foolproofing" is not a great way to describe these process improvements. It is pretty condescending to label somebody as a fool for anynsingle erroneous action!