4 ms·
Except what he did resulted in progress. What you are proposing most of the time will not because it would require an immense, truly Herculean, amount of polit
by sputr 6y ago
Except what he did resulted in progress.
What you are proposing most of the time will not because it would require an immense, truly Herculean, amount of political will and backing.
Redesigning processes clashes with the #1 rule of big systems: processes are ruled by people whose jobs depend on them. And they WILL fight tooth and nail to keep those jobs. The bigger the change, the more threatened they will feel, the more they will sabotage you.
And you know what the #2 rule of big systems is: no matter what "the boss" may say, if the officials are not on board it's just not going to happen.
If you have not, I suggest watching "Yes minister" :).
- ghaff 6y agoPeople don't like to be told they have to change the way they do things because... the computer. Years ago, I was at a very small company that used Exchange. We had some outages and it was just a lot of administrative overhead in a world in which Gmail was by then an option. But one person in particular fought the change strongly because they were used to a business/sales process that used hierarchical folders to keep documents organized and Gmail, at the time, only had single level labels. The CEO mandated the change anyway but the other person never accepted that Gmail was suitable for our needs.
- watwut 6y agoSure. But also, lets admit that software developers are not qualified to redesign processes of institutions they dont understand, so fighting them is pretty often rational from institutional point of view.
- 908B64B197 6y agoIf the processes of an institution can't be explained to a real, qualified software engineer, the issue runs much deeper than just resisting to change.