4 ms·

> Keep the work parallel, the groups small, and the resources local. That how the military gets things done, by having a trained officer corps which can think

> Keep the work parallel, the groups small, and the resources local. That how the military gets things done, by having a trained officer corps which can think on a local level and the higher up give general guidelines for how to proceed in different situations.

dvt 7y ago
I guess it depends what you mean by that exactly. Military "group" sizes range from squads (~30 people) to corps (~50,000 people). According to the article, the dyad sizes here would be huge; but my hypothesis was that point-to-point communication is often not necessary in military organizations due to the rigid structure.
- iab 7y ago
  Not necessary, and also actively inhibited via chain-of-command
- battery_cowboy 7y ago
  I mean that each unit in the military has some general orders on how to proceed in their mission, but the commander has a lot of flexibility. That true for the squad the same as for the platoon, they're just different sizes. The work gets done efficiently because there isn't the need to approve each action with the next level up, but often in business they don't trust the low level manager to make those decisions.
- mntmoss 7y ago
  The military - and many essential services like police, fire, healthcare - differ in that a majority of the work is not "doing" but "preparing". The military does not optimize towards cheaply increasing daily metrics of death and destruction, rather, it aims to use a targeted amount of force to achieve a particular national objective at the exact moment demand for that objective arises. Most units sit idle most of the time, in a runtime system with very low latency and variable throughput. The same analogy is obvious when you think of police(we don't want crimes committed), fire(we don't want lots of fires to fight), healthcare(we don't want tons of patients). And that leads towards the extensive investments in training, doctrine, equipment, logistics etc. And so the majority of military employees are not "doing work" in the sense that a tech startup is, where every employee is directly engaged in optimizing the system's value chain - that kind of work occurs only in the core command, around the generals and planners and architects and researchers of the next war. The majority of the work is simply maintenance of the system so that the needed response is possible when called for. And I believe this examined difference in organizational purpose also applies across a lot of businesses. The value chain is always shifting in surprising ways, but generally in the direction of lower maintenance.
  - battery_cowboy 7y ago
    Exactly right, thanks for putting it better than I could.
  - dvt 7y ago
    Excellent explanation! The difference between these kinds of "work" is a very poignant distinction.
- zip1234 7y ago
  The Air Force has the basic doctrine of "Centralized Control, Decentralized Execution". In essence, thousands of aircraft can be controlled by a single commander but only to a certain point. In practice this means that the commander tells his planners what to do and they make a plan for all of the aircraft and how they will coordinate. It is then up to the commanders of those aircraft squadrons to make sure that their aircraft are in the right place at the right time and have the desired effect.
plughs 7y ago
I don't mean this to sound skeptical, just curious - would you say that the military gets things done better than your average tech company? I could fill pages with complaints and criticisms of the way companies do business, but sometimes I wonder if it's a matter of being the worst way except for all the others
- battery_cowboy 7y ago
  The military spends a fucking ton to get the results they get, I'd bet they put a million bucks into my training as a junior officer back then (it was a while ago). That's mostly why they get results. It wouldn't work for most businesses.
- bsder 7y ago
  > would you say that the military gets things done better than your average tech company? No, because a tech company is all about avoiding work. Tech companies do as little as possible to reach the benchmark and no more. The military is about "Getting unit X of work done. Period." Whether that work is stupid or irrelevant is not up for debate once it's assigned. The work must get done; it will get done; there is a minimum standard; the cost is now irrelevant."
- andrewflnr 7y ago
  In wartime it does, usually.

dvt 7y ago

I guess it depends what you mean by that exactly. Military "group" sizes range from squads (~30 people) to corps (~50,000 people). According to the article, the dyad sizes here would be huge; but my hypothesis was that point-to-point communication is often not necessary in military organizations due to the rigid structure.

iab 7y ago
Not necessary, and also actively inhibited via chain-of-command
battery_cowboy 7y ago
I mean that each unit in the military has some general orders on how to proceed in their mission, but the commander has a lot of flexibility. That true for the squad the same as for the platoon, they're just different sizes. The work gets done efficiently because there isn't the need to approve each action with the next level up, but often in business they don't trust the low level manager to make those decisions.
mntmoss 7y ago
The military - and many essential services like police, fire, healthcare - differ in that a majority of the work is not "doing" but "preparing". The military does not optimize towards cheaply increasing daily metrics of death and destruction, rather, it aims to use a targeted amount of force to achieve a particular national objective at the exact moment demand for that objective arises. Most units sit idle most of the time, in a runtime system with very low latency and variable throughput. The same analogy is obvious when you think of police(we don't want crimes committed), fire(we don't want lots of fires to fight), healthcare(we don't want tons of patients). And that leads towards the extensive investments in training, doctrine, equipment, logistics etc. And so the majority of military employees are not "doing work" in the sense that a tech startup is, where every employee is directly engaged in optimizing the system's value chain - that kind of work occurs only in the core command, around the generals and planners and architects and researchers of the next war. The majority of the work is simply maintenance of the system so that the needed response is possible when called for. And I believe this examined difference in organizational purpose also applies across a lot of businesses. The value chain is always shifting in surprising ways, but generally in the direction of lower maintenance.
- battery_cowboy 7y ago
  Exactly right, thanks for putting it better than I could.
- dvt 7y ago
  Excellent explanation! The difference between these kinds of "work" is a very poignant distinction.
zip1234 7y ago
The Air Force has the basic doctrine of "Centralized Control, Decentralized Execution". In essence, thousands of aircraft can be controlled by a single commander but only to a certain point. In practice this means that the commander tells his planners what to do and they make a plan for all of the aircraft and how they will coordinate. It is then up to the commanders of those aircraft squadrons to make sure that their aircraft are in the right place at the right time and have the desired effect.

plughs 7y ago

I don't mean this to sound skeptical, just curious - would you say that the military gets things done better than your average tech company? I could fill pages with complaints and criticisms of the way companies do business, but sometimes I wonder if it's a matter of being the worst way except for all the others

battery_cowboy 7y ago
The military spends a fucking ton to get the results they get, I'd bet they put a million bucks into my training as a junior officer back then (it was a while ago). That's mostly why they get results. It wouldn't work for most businesses.
bsder 7y ago
> would you say that the military gets things done better than your average tech company? No, because a tech company is all about avoiding work. Tech companies do as little as possible to reach the benchmark and no more. The military is about "Getting unit X of work done. Period." Whether that work is stupid or irrelevant is not up for debate once it's assigned. The work must get done; it will get done; there is a minimum standard; the cost is now irrelevant."
andrewflnr 7y ago
In wartime it does, usually.