3 ms·
>and is not a cost worth optimizing. Well, it's kind of like plumbing. Once established, you don't think about it much until something goes wrong. Maybe someon
by ineedasername 5y ago
>and is not a cost worth optimizing.
Well, it's kind of like plumbing. Once established, you don't think about it much until something goes wrong. Maybe someone notices, "Hey, our annual maintenance is $x, but I think the normal rate is only $x-y."
But unless it's time for a lot of belt tightening, making that change is pure risk if the system mostly works, problems are fixed quickly, etc. Because maybe you change plumbers, and there's a catastrophic failure that would have happened anyway, but now via the magic of post-hoc fallacies it looks like the change is what caused the problem. (And maybe it did! who knows?)
So there are many things in any organization that only get optimized/updated (or even just simple maintenance) when they become a noticeable problem. The old adage about not fixing what isn't broken-- you need to really be able to show a likely failure in order to make a preemptive change.
- ineedasername 5y agoAs a side note, this can be a good thing. When a certain amount of change aversion isn't maintained, you get change for change's sake. Organizationally, you get every new manager trying to "make their mark" on things. Individually, you get developers trying to add "migrated product to $X shiny new framework" to their resume for their next job hop in 2-3 years. But many/most of us have probably also worked in environments that were far too conservative about changes, so that may be the more common problem.