4 ms·

Bureaucracy normally has some design goals: - accountability. We need to know who did what, so we need to store a bunch of information about access and authori

Bureaucracy normally has some design goals: - accountability. We need to know who did what, so we need to store a bunch of information about access and authorization. We want to know who is responsible for stuff, so some gatekeeping is necessary. - fairness. It shouldn't matter who approaches the org, they need to be treated according to the merits of their case and not their status. - throughput. We have a bureaucracy because a bunch of people need to be served. Read between the lines and we also mean cheaply. - latency. They need to be served soon, otherwise what's the point? - longevity. We don't want the system collapsing just because one or two civil servants leave. It needs to not be fragile. - user friendly. People come to the desk, they want a driver's license, they don't want to do a bunch of stuff with forms. As Bender said, gimme your biggest, strongest, cheapest drink.

jotm 4y ago
Many bureaucracies took "throughput, latency, user friendliness" personally. So, out of sheer spite, they decided that should mean "the slowest, least responsive, least friendly thing ever so people give up and piss off" :D Also helps a lot of "fixers" who work in the system, get paid government wages and want to make some actual money.
n4r9 4y ago
How about "correctness" as a goal? The idea being that it's harder to miss something out or get something wrong if it has to be checked multiple times by different people as part of the process.
willcipriano 4y ago
On the fairness point, having a thick bureaucracy allows those within it to help those outside navigate the maze, or outright expedite the process for a fee or favor down the line. Bureaucracy is the reason long term congressmen and senators are all multi millionaires. It's also the reason why people who work on the military procurement programs end up getting coshy jobs at firms like Raytheon after they are done servicing the public. I rarely go a day without seeing an example of this effect in action.
kqr 4y ago
Haha yeah, this would be funny were it not so sad. - accountability: bureaucracies allow people to hind behind process and anonymity to shirk basically all responsibility. - fairness: bureaucratic systems are usually designed with a particular type of person in mind and if you don't fit that mold, it will be hard to accomplish anything. - throughput and latency: I don't even have to write anything here. - longevity: this is something bureaucracies are actually good at -- propagating themselves. - user friendliness: yeaah.
- stewbrew 4y ago
  Bureaucratic processes are about the process and not about single individuals. Such a process is anonymous by definition. It doesn't care about what type of people is involved. If the typr of person were important it would be a flaw, a bug in the system. Look up under corruption, bribing, injustice etc.
  - 8jef 4y ago
    How it should probably be done: some high ranking civil servant is ordered to plan for a process centered around management of _X need_. If _X need_ means having a system to administer social security numbers, then it's fair to assume the process should be simultaneously widespread, short, easy to handle, and extremely reliable. If it means delivering some checks to single mothers in sparsely populated neighborhoods citywide, it could be done with something as simple as a spreadsheet. The only common requirement to both task is the need for safety, accountability, and compatibility with /between parent and /or parallel systems. How it's done in real life: some IT contractor creates an overly complicated stacked platform that does it all (ordered by some IT uneducated but ego infatuated ill informed client with a budget), excepted for the fact that the system is a smokescreen and does not all at all. The contractor then sells more platform access to some other like minded clients, which all have wildly different requirements. In the end, the do-it-all platform becomes a giant mess nobody understands, _X need_ budget allocations dissolves in contractor's hands, social security numbers are scrambled, and single mothers never get their checks.

jotm 4y ago

Many bureaucracies took "throughput, latency, user friendliness" personally. So, out of sheer spite, they decided that should mean "the slowest, least responsive, least friendly thing ever so people give up and piss off" :D Also helps a lot of "fixers" who work in the system, get paid government wages and want to make some actual money.

n4r9 4y ago

How about "correctness" as a goal? The idea being that it's harder to miss something out or get something wrong if it has to be checked multiple times by different people as part of the process.

willcipriano 4y ago

On the fairness point, having a thick bureaucracy allows those within it to help those outside navigate the maze, or outright expedite the process for a fee or favor down the line. Bureaucracy is the reason long term congressmen and senators are all multi millionaires. It's also the reason why people who work on the military procurement programs end up getting coshy jobs at firms like Raytheon after they are done servicing the public. I rarely go a day without seeing an example of this effect in action.

kqr 4y ago

Haha yeah, this would be funny were it not so sad. - accountability: bureaucracies allow people to hind behind process and anonymity to shirk basically all responsibility. - fairness: bureaucratic systems are usually designed with a particular type of person in mind and if you don't fit that mold, it will be hard to accomplish anything. - throughput and latency: I don't even have to write anything here. - longevity: this is something bureaucracies are actually good at -- propagating themselves. - user friendliness: yeaah.

stewbrew 4y ago
Bureaucratic processes are about the process and not about single individuals. Such a process is anonymous by definition. It doesn't care about what type of people is involved. If the typr of person were important it would be a flaw, a bug in the system. Look up under corruption, bribing, injustice etc.
- 8jef 4y ago
  How it should probably be done: some high ranking civil servant is ordered to plan for a process centered around management of _X need_. If _X need_ means having a system to administer social security numbers, then it's fair to assume the process should be simultaneously widespread, short, easy to handle, and extremely reliable. If it means delivering some checks to single mothers in sparsely populated neighborhoods citywide, it could be done with something as simple as a spreadsheet. The only common requirement to both task is the need for safety, accountability, and compatibility with /between parent and /or parallel systems. How it's done in real life: some IT contractor creates an overly complicated stacked platform that does it all (ordered by some IT uneducated but ego infatuated ill informed client with a budget), excepted for the fact that the system is a smokescreen and does not all at all. The contractor then sells more platform access to some other like minded clients, which all have wildly different requirements. In the end, the do-it-all platform becomes a giant mess nobody understands, _X need_ budget allocations dissolves in contractor's hands, social security numbers are scrambled, and single mothers never get their checks.