3 ms·

> The problem, they said: They didn’t have access to workplace data to help them make their decision. > Without that data, nearly a quarter of them admit to ma

by Lutger 3y ago

> The problem, they said: They didn’t have access to workplace data to help them make their decision. > Without that data, nearly a quarter of them admit to making decisions based on “gut instinct > I don’t have data to back it up, but I know it’s better. To me its rather obvious most management (and sales) do not actually understand what work means, other than sitting in meetings the whole day talking to people. That's their job. Management wants everybody in the office to facilitate them, they don't care about what their employees need to do their jobs, let alone the personal well-being of workers. We don't need data, just talk to employees as if they were normal adult human beings and try to understand their perspectives. Management is there to help employees do the work that actually brings value, not the other way around. In management-speak: management is waste. Companies who understand this will get all the talent, the rest will need to compensate with very high salaries to attract good developers.

kkfx 3y ago
That's "romance" :-) RTO is needed to keep up a slice of businesses useless for the society, but profitable for some, let's start from high rise buildings rentals to services for those working there, living around. Only marginally is a middle managers and lower management issue, whose job is actually in the series of "not really useful jobs".
- KineticLensman 3y ago
  > whose job is actually in the series of "not really useful jobs" Perhaps they should return to the Golgafrinchan 'B' Ark
sidlls 3y ago
"Management is there to help employees do the work that actually brings value, not the other way around. In management-speak: management is waste." This is self-contradictory. If facilitation is needed for "work that actually brings value", then the work required to facilitate also has value.
- Lutger 3y ago
  As I said, it is management speak, coming from Lean. I didn't make this up. In my country Lean is hugely influential in all kinds of domains, not just in software development. Probably rivaling or surpassing Scrum. Maybe this isn't the case everywhere? This is merely a semantic play though, let me quote something: "Muda means wastefulness, uselessness and futility, which is contradicting value-addition. Value-added work is a process that adds value to the product or service that the customer is willing to pay for. There are two types of Muda, Type 1 and Type 2. Muda Type 1 includes non-value-added activities in the processes that are necessary for the end customer. For example, inspection and safety testing does not directly add value to the final product; however, they are necessary activities to ensure a safe product for customers. Muda Type 2 includes non-value added activities in the processes, but these activities are unnecessary for the customer. As a result, Muda Type 2 should be eliminated." - https://theleanway.net/muda-mura-muri https://theleanway.net/muda-mura-muri Muda is usually translated as Waste. Perhaps 'overhead' would be more accurate for Type 1 Muda. However this distinction between value-adding and 'required but not value-adding' is central to the way lean approaches optimization. Actually I don't really know why it isn't just translated as overhead, the term waste is bit offensive I think for some. Maybe that is the goal though.
- thaumasiotes 3y ago
  Yes, overhead has value. But you always wish you could make do with less overhead.
  - pc86 3y ago
    And you almost always can, it's just harder. Things are much easier with too much overhead. It's the same as computing performance. Working with 64K of RAM is hard, because you spend so much time on performance. Add 10,000x the overhead and you don't end up with 10,000x more powerful software, you end up with Electron and senior developers who don't know anything about performance testing. I worked for a company with maybe ~800 people in the IT division (IT in this context means software, DBA, security, help desk, actual IT, everything). Our reporting structure over the entire department, for each group, was something like Manager -> Sr. Manager -> Director -> Sr. Director -> VP -> Sr. VP -> Executive VP -> CIO -> COO -> CEO. We had about a dozen programmers, all one team. 12-14 people reporting to one manager. One manager reporting to one Sr. Manager. Two Sr. Managers reporting to one Director. I am not one of these "managers are worthless" people, I was a manager before and it was a lot of work. But you could have nuked half the management in the entire IT department, and probably 90% of the SVPs and EVPs, and after the dust settled work would have continued at exactly the same pace if not faster.

by Lutger 3y ago

kkfx 3y ago

That's "romance" :-) RTO is needed to keep up a slice of businesses useless for the society, but profitable for some, let's start from high rise buildings rentals to services for those working there, living around. Only marginally is a middle managers and lower management issue, whose job is actually in the series of "not really useful jobs".

KineticLensman 3y ago
> whose job is actually in the series of "not really useful jobs" Perhaps they should return to the Golgafrinchan 'B' Ark

sidlls 3y ago

"Management is there to help employees do the work that actually brings value, not the other way around. In management-speak: management is waste." This is self-contradictory. If facilitation is needed for "work that actually brings value", then the work required to facilitate also has value.

Lutger 3y ago
As I said, it is management speak, coming from Lean. I didn't make this up. In my country Lean is hugely influential in all kinds of domains, not just in software development. Probably rivaling or surpassing Scrum. Maybe this isn't the case everywhere? This is merely a semantic play though, let me quote something: "Muda means wastefulness, uselessness and futility, which is contradicting value-addition. Value-added work is a process that adds value to the product or service that the customer is willing to pay for. There are two types of Muda, Type 1 and Type 2. Muda Type 1 includes non-value-added activities in the processes that are necessary for the end customer. For example, inspection and safety testing does not directly add value to the final product; however, they are necessary activities to ensure a safe product for customers. Muda Type 2 includes non-value added activities in the processes, but these activities are unnecessary for the customer. As a result, Muda Type 2 should be eliminated." - https://theleanway.net/muda-mura-muri https://theleanway.net/muda-mura-muri Muda is usually translated as Waste. Perhaps 'overhead' would be more accurate for Type 1 Muda. However this distinction between value-adding and 'required but not value-adding' is central to the way lean approaches optimization. Actually I don't really know why it isn't just translated as overhead, the term waste is bit offensive I think for some. Maybe that is the goal though.
thaumasiotes 3y ago
Yes, overhead has value. But you always wish you could make do with less overhead.
- pc86 3y ago
  And you almost always can, it's just harder. Things are much easier with too much overhead. It's the same as computing performance. Working with 64K of RAM is hard, because you spend so much time on performance. Add 10,000x the overhead and you don't end up with 10,000x more powerful software, you end up with Electron and senior developers who don't know anything about performance testing. I worked for a company with maybe ~800 people in the IT division (IT in this context means software, DBA, security, help desk, actual IT, everything). Our reporting structure over the entire department, for each group, was something like Manager -> Sr. Manager -> Director -> Sr. Director -> VP -> Sr. VP -> Executive VP -> CIO -> COO -> CEO. We had about a dozen programmers, all one team. 12-14 people reporting to one manager. One manager reporting to one Sr. Manager. Two Sr. Managers reporting to one Director. I am not one of these "managers are worthless" people, I was a manager before and it was a lot of work. But you could have nuked half the management in the entire IT department, and probably 90% of the SVPs and EVPs, and after the dust settled work would have continued at exactly the same pace if not faster.