4 ms·
I'm not sure what to draw from this- the 7 "myths" being busted here aren't being shown to be wrong, just not the entire truth 100% of the time, and AFAICT no a
by mwfunk 7y ago
I'm not sure what to draw from this- the 7 "myths" being busted here aren't being shown to be wrong, just not the entire truth 100% of the time, and AFAICT no alternative approaches are suggested.
For example, item 2 ("Simplify") tries to debunk the notion that simpler systems are more robust. The author seems to be trying to say, "simplifying a system isn't always going to make it more robust". Likewise, item 1 ("Add redundancy") tries to debunk the notion that redundant systems are more robust. Item 7 ("Remove the people who cause accidents") tries to debunk the notion that if you have someone who is always screwing stuff up, getting rid of that person will help you.
But...OK, I get it, none of these things are silver bullets or sacred cows or whatever. But what's the suggestion? Make systems more complicated? Avoid redundancy? Keep people around who always screw stuff up? This would make a lot more sense if it was presented as things which might help, but shouldn't be thought of as silver bullets that will automatically fix everything. Instead it's presented as myths being debunked, implying that the "myths" aren't just imperfect, but wrong, which doesn't make sense to me. Simpler is better than overly complicated. Redundancy doesn't solve everything but can certainly help. Getting rid of terrible employees who never seem to improve is generally a good idea. The way the list is presented seems not actionable at best, and misleading at worst.
- joe_the_user 7y agoThe article seems like contrarian clickbait. Take a bunch of things that are well known to be true and challenge them in an intelligent way - except the stuff really is true and the challenges are just "sometimes not true" and "even a good thing can be overdone". It's a completely opportunistic, low-quality discussion framework even if done by a qualified person saying a bunch of technically correct things.
- dkersten 7y agoYeah, I read it and came away no better than I went in. Right, so all these things don't always work, but nobody claimed that and the article didn't present any solutions, so I really didn't gain anything from reading it. Besides, I've personally had plenty of success in applying these myths. I also took a look at the "root cause analysis" article and I don't quite know what to make of it. If I don't fix the "root cause" then the problem will reoccur. Sure, it might not prevent future problems, but it certainly is necessary to fix the current problem and to prevent that exact problem from reoccurring. > reinforces hierarchical structures that confer blame, and this inhibits learning, creativity, and psychological safety. Uhhh, no? Nowhere I've worked at least. It helped us understand what went wrong and what caused the failure. No finger pointing, just finding out what caused the breakage so it can be fixed.