3 ms·

Hard agree. Better compartmentalization should be the norm. A true need-to-know basis policy requires way more discipline than we have today. That requires ever

Hard agree. Better compartmentalization should be the norm. A true need-to-know basis policy requires way more discipline than we have today. That requires every level to actually be competent enough to deeply analyze the problems they're trying to solve and generalize their requirements. SOL on that these days.

mewpmewp2 3y ago
> A true need-to-know basis policy requires way more discipline than we have today. I don't think it's just discipline. It will decrease efficiency massively having to work around those bureaucratic hurdles. > That requires every level to actually be competent enough to deeply analyze the problems they're trying to solve and generalize their requirements. That could be right. Your solution perhaps could work, if everyone was superhuman and was able to work with limited information, having perfect communication without knowing the big picture or the goals. From working with corporations, to me it's almost impossible to work well without knowing big picture. It's a huge difference, how much of everything I'm able to know. It can easily mean 10x or 100x or infinite efficiency difference. If everything is compartmentalised and you need to do your task, you need to know something, but in order to know it, you may not even know who to really ask. And if you do, then who knows, when you will receive the answer. Requirements of everything are just far too complex to be able to perfectly share this information without the context.
- sublinear 3y ago
  The person who needs to know more would be your boss. Compartmentalization doesn't create knowledge gaps, but incompetence does. In the corporate world the incentives aren't aligned well. You get promoted for delivering business results instead of good solutions. Most corporate middle managers defer their responsibilities to their employees which is why you end up having to know so much and do all the legwork of asking around. Lucky you that's a lot of power they're just giving away. Oh hey so that's why any random low level employee can leak so much information! Who woulda thunk it? Assuming they became your boss through technical merit they should be able to adequately describe requirements and anticipate implementation details. They could do it themselves if they had the time, but they don't anymore. Good requirements shouldn't need follow up questions beyond you potentially not knowing how to do something. You ask your boss. Your boss doesn't have to know the whole project to deliver their piece. This funnels all the planning towards the top and they have massive incentive to shut the fuck up and not leak anything. It really is that simple.
  - mewpmewp2 3y ago
    But the boss could not have as specialized skillset and knowledge as the lower level worker would have, so the boss couldn't be able to know as much, compared to what lower level worker would need to find out. Responsibilities have to be delegated from the up, down, because upper level can't possibly have all the knowledge and skill of the skill-workers themselves as they are not spending 100% of their time on this exact skill work. > Assuming they became your boss through technical merit they should be able to adequately describe requirements and anticipate implementation details. For a period of time when they are within the domain yes. However if you are not constantly working in the domain to the same extent as the skill worker, you won't be able to keep up with the information. In order to be able to be on the exact same level of information you would need to spend the same amount of time on the skill work itself. > Good requirements shouldn't need follow up questions beyond you potentially not knowing how to do something. There's no way you can write such good requirements in any at least even slightly remotely complicated project. Nobody could write such requirements. The complex things are always iterative. You can only do simple, repetitive things like that. Absolutely nothing innovative. > This funnels all the planning towards the top and they have massive incentive to shut the fuck up and not leak anything. It really is that simple. This could only work in something like military with standard processes and where everyone follows this routine and orders. But not in intelligence work. Intelligence work is never that straightforward.

mewpmewp2 3y ago

> A true need-to-know basis policy requires way more discipline than we have today. I don't think it's just discipline. It will decrease efficiency massively having to work around those bureaucratic hurdles. > That requires every level to actually be competent enough to deeply analyze the problems they're trying to solve and generalize their requirements. That could be right. Your solution perhaps could work, if everyone was superhuman and was able to work with limited information, having perfect communication without knowing the big picture or the goals. From working with corporations, to me it's almost impossible to work well without knowing big picture. It's a huge difference, how much of everything I'm able to know. It can easily mean 10x or 100x or infinite efficiency difference. If everything is compartmentalised and you need to do your task, you need to know something, but in order to know it, you may not even know who to really ask. And if you do, then who knows, when you will receive the answer. Requirements of everything are just far too complex to be able to perfectly share this information without the context.

sublinear 3y ago
The person who needs to know more would be your boss. Compartmentalization doesn't create knowledge gaps, but incompetence does. In the corporate world the incentives aren't aligned well. You get promoted for delivering business results instead of good solutions. Most corporate middle managers defer their responsibilities to their employees which is why you end up having to know so much and do all the legwork of asking around. Lucky you that's a lot of power they're just giving away. Oh hey so that's why any random low level employee can leak so much information! Who woulda thunk it? Assuming they became your boss through technical merit they should be able to adequately describe requirements and anticipate implementation details. They could do it themselves if they had the time, but they don't anymore. Good requirements shouldn't need follow up questions beyond you potentially not knowing how to do something. You ask your boss. Your boss doesn't have to know the whole project to deliver their piece. This funnels all the planning towards the top and they have massive incentive to shut the fuck up and not leak anything. It really is that simple.
- mewpmewp2 3y ago
  But the boss could not have as specialized skillset and knowledge as the lower level worker would have, so the boss couldn't be able to know as much, compared to what lower level worker would need to find out. Responsibilities have to be delegated from the up, down, because upper level can't possibly have all the knowledge and skill of the skill-workers themselves as they are not spending 100% of their time on this exact skill work. > Assuming they became your boss through technical merit they should be able to adequately describe requirements and anticipate implementation details. For a period of time when they are within the domain yes. However if you are not constantly working in the domain to the same extent as the skill worker, you won't be able to keep up with the information. In order to be able to be on the exact same level of information you would need to spend the same amount of time on the skill work itself. > Good requirements shouldn't need follow up questions beyond you potentially not knowing how to do something. There's no way you can write such good requirements in any at least even slightly remotely complicated project. Nobody could write such requirements. The complex things are always iterative. You can only do simple, repetitive things like that. Absolutely nothing innovative. > This funnels all the planning towards the top and they have massive incentive to shut the fuck up and not leak anything. It really is that simple. This could only work in something like military with standard processes and where everyone follows this routine and orders. But not in intelligence work. Intelligence work is never that straightforward.