4 ms·

I'm surprised at the hostile reception to this post, because I think it's making a very good point. The trend in the new economy is for a large percentage of p

I'm surprised at the hostile reception to this post, because I think it's making a very good point. The trend in the new economy is for a large percentage of people to be discarded like rubbish, while increasingly insane workloads are placed on the remainder. Not only is this bad for all the individuals involved and for the health of society, but OP makes the point that it's actually bad for the bottom line too. Executives are rewarded for doing things this way because it superficially looks like they are saving money, but the resulting productivity cut ends up reducing profitability. A more sane and equitable distribution of workload, would be better by every metric including profit.

Justsignedup 8y ago
And even if the workloads are doable in a standard workday, the context-switching involved removes any possibility of high-quality thinking.
Jtsummers 8y ago
> The trend in the new economy is for a large percentage of people to be discarded like rubbish This trend started over a century ago. As mass production took over, skilled labor (artisans and tradesmen) were replaced with people who may as well have been machines (for all their employers cared). Scientific management led to a hyper-micromanaged workforce (at least as a goal) where each worker was instructed in the most efficient way to do their job and weren't expected to deviate. Interestingly, Taylor saw some of the same things Deming did but came to very different conclusions about how to resolve the issues. Taylor effectively worked to disempower workers (failing to recognize that this was also what led to their demotivation and poor performance) while Deming worked to empower workers (recognizing that this led to pride in their work and better performance). The problem has been that, while Taylorism has been discredited for nearly a century, his influence remains. It moved from the factory floor into the office. "If only you devs would do everything right, we could always ship on time with zero defects." -- An almost verbatim quote from a former supervisor, not ironically Many people in management roles are woefully underprepared for it. They operate under the same flawed belief as Taylor: If only the stupid employees would do precisely what the smart people wrote down in the work instructions (NB: often not actually written down, or not matching reality if written down) then this company would be awesome. Why is it so hard to do a travel voucher (ignoring that the employee travels once every 2-3 years and the voucher forms have changed since the last time)? > Executives are rewarded for doing things this way because it superficially looks like they are saving money, but the resulting productivity cut ends up reducing profitability. From understanding Lean, there are costs you can cut (things which aren't value added), and costs you oughtn't cut (or shouldn't cut much). But it's easy to recognize when someone is doing work which directly adds value (writing a line of code, properly aligning the mold and the sheet metal). It's hard to recognize indirect value and costs. I had (but removed, it got long) an analysis of how much we lose in my office to time spent managing travel each year. The swing would be from losing over $100k/year to making over $100k just by hiring one full-time travel specialist (we don't charge the customers for the time spent dealing with travel agents so the engineers' time is lost revenue, a single in-house travel specialist could handle the local office with ease and free up those engineer-hours to be charged to the customer for actual work).

Justsignedup 8y ago

And even if the workloads are doable in a standard workday, the context-switching involved removes any possibility of high-quality thinking.

Jtsummers 8y ago

> The trend in the new economy is for a large percentage of people to be discarded like rubbish This trend started over a century ago. As mass production took over, skilled labor (artisans and tradesmen) were replaced with people who may as well have been machines (for all their employers cared). Scientific management led to a hyper-micromanaged workforce (at least as a goal) where each worker was instructed in the most efficient way to do their job and weren't expected to deviate. Interestingly, Taylor saw some of the same things Deming did but came to very different conclusions about how to resolve the issues. Taylor effectively worked to disempower workers (failing to recognize that this was also what led to their demotivation and poor performance) while Deming worked to empower workers (recognizing that this led to pride in their work and better performance). The problem has been that, while Taylorism has been discredited for nearly a century, his influence remains. It moved from the factory floor into the office. "If only you devs would do everything right, we could always ship on time with zero defects." -- An almost verbatim quote from a former supervisor, not ironically Many people in management roles are woefully underprepared for it. They operate under the same flawed belief as Taylor: If only the stupid employees would do precisely what the smart people wrote down in the work instructions (NB: often not actually written down, or not matching reality if written down) then this company would be awesome. Why is it so hard to do a travel voucher (ignoring that the employee travels once every 2-3 years and the voucher forms have changed since the last time)? > Executives are rewarded for doing things this way because it superficially looks like they are saving money, but the resulting productivity cut ends up reducing profitability. From understanding Lean, there are costs you can cut (things which aren't value added), and costs you oughtn't cut (or shouldn't cut much). But it's easy to recognize when someone is doing work which directly adds value (writing a line of code, properly aligning the mold and the sheet metal). It's hard to recognize indirect value and costs. I had (but removed, it got long) an analysis of how much we lose in my office to time spent managing travel each year. The swing would be from losing over $100k/year to making over $100k just by hiring one full-time travel specialist (we don't charge the customers for the time spent dealing with travel agents so the engineers' time is lost revenue, a single in-house travel specialist could handle the local office with ease and free up those engineer-hours to be charged to the customer for actual work).