3 ms·
> Not because I'm worried that my job will be taken by software, but because said software will barely work. If said automation works like most corporate initi
by oceanplexian 5y ago
> Not because I'm worried that my job will be taken by software, but because said software will barely work.
If said automation works like most corporate initiatives I've been a part of, it'll require 5 employees to implement, update, and maintain for every 1 that it saves, meanwhile costing millions of dollars per year to some vendor for a support license. Some workers might be let go but they were on the chopping block anyway. A few years later the whole thing is scrapped and the cycle starts over again.
- pydry 5y agoOne of the most interesting automations I saw was a system intended to let the company handle more calls with fewer people by pushing people into not talking to a human. Except the reason they had so many calls in the first place was largely because every other business process was fucked, which kinda meant you needed a human.
- ethbr0 5y agoI call this automating feeding coal into a dumpster fire. "Broken process vs broken execution?" is one of the first questions everyone should keep in mind during automation discovery. But it's (usually) a nuanced call.
- Ericson2314 5y agoThis is why automation to cut costs in a lax labor market is much less interesting than automation in a tight and tightening labor market. The fear of wages and workers, not just idle "gee more profits would be nice", is what makes automation actually go, vs floundering out as some middle managers doing a b2b steak dinner grift