4 ms·

I saw a large organization which was the epitome of this -- Executive Directors would propose ambitious ML projects, Directors would create plans and teams, Man

I saw a large organization which was the epitome of this -- Executive Directors would propose ambitious ML projects, Directors would create plans and teams, Managers would execute on budgets, create more detailed plans, and then...someone actually needed to do the work. Because of the length of the effort, the annual compensation would already have been handed out and the EDs, Directors, Managers had already "extracted" their compensation for the project, but usually had none left for the workers who eventually needed to do the actual work. Not unexpectedly, a rough job was somehow jammed thru with understaffed, underpaid, and unmotivated low-level workers to actually "deliver" on the "AI" projects -- so victory could be declared at the top level...and new projects could begin. This isnt an ML problem, i'm sure the whole cycle has been repeated with technology-of-the-day generation after generation. It has more to do with governance and organizational maturity to measure real impacts.

da39a3ee 5y ago
That sounds truly awful. Not necessarily surprising —- but could you give us some clues as to which company this was so that we can avoid working there?
- balsam 5y ago
  Not grandparent but that orgchart sounds like.. a (possibly government related) tech org somewhere in the Commonwealth.
- AwaAwa 5y ago
  I've been in a few over the decades, and sounds like every tech company after the glory/startup years. Was even in one "hype" startup that began this way almost immediately.
- TuringNYC 5y ago
  This is a common enough occurrence that you probably want to learn how to spot bad setups, where-ever they might be. I think the key is to discern Value vs Vanity. You want to be on value-add projects (those producing revenue, or reducing risk, increasing speed, or reducing cost) but not on Vanity projects. The trouble is that differentiating Vanity vs Innovation is hard. You can discern them though, in two ways I think: 1. By the level of motivation of low-level workers (true innovation is exciting) while underfunded vanity projects are soul crushing 2. By the seeming intentions of senior management -- are they more focused on the stated goal or on press/buzz? I do not have sufficient n-value to come up with hard and fast rules but i'd love to hear others' thoughts

da39a3ee 5y ago

That sounds truly awful. Not necessarily surprising —- but could you give us some clues as to which company this was so that we can avoid working there?

balsam 5y ago
Not grandparent but that orgchart sounds like.. a (possibly government related) tech org somewhere in the Commonwealth.
AwaAwa 5y ago
I've been in a few over the decades, and sounds like every tech company after the glory/startup years. Was even in one "hype" startup that began this way almost immediately.
TuringNYC 5y ago
This is a common enough occurrence that you probably want to learn how to spot bad setups, where-ever they might be. I think the key is to discern Value vs Vanity. You want to be on value-add projects (those producing revenue, or reducing risk, increasing speed, or reducing cost) but not on Vanity projects. The trouble is that differentiating Vanity vs Innovation is hard. You can discern them though, in two ways I think: 1. By the level of motivation of low-level workers (true innovation is exciting) while underfunded vanity projects are soul crushing 2. By the seeming intentions of senior management -- are they more focused on the stated goal or on press/buzz? I do not have sufficient n-value to come up with hard and fast rules but i'd love to hear others' thoughts