5 ms·

If you want a speedy government and speedy paperwork, it might be worth asking if we could increase headcount to handle tasks, preferably in parallel if possibl

by kiba 2y ago

If you want a speedy government and speedy paperwork, it might be worth asking if we could increase headcount to handle tasks, preferably in parallel if possible. For example, if you require your house to get inspected for code, you may want to increase the size of your planning department so that code inspection can occur within the day. Can the environmental assessment be done in parallel to other necessary paperwork? The correct size of a department is probably not 100% utilization of employees, but more like 80% to allow for slack. If you're 100% utilization, the demand is greater than the ability of employees to complete tasks within reasonable time, then you're undersized. At 100%, if demand surge, then waiting time will obviously increases.

derekp7 2y ago
There is a good analysis (from a corporate perspective) in The Phoenix Project.
llamaimperative 2y ago
Yep, larger government with (arguably) a smaller/tighter mandate.
syndicatedjelly 2y ago
If you want a speedy government and speedy paperwork, it might be worth asking if we could increase headcount to handle tasks, preferably in parallel if possible. A comment like this is kind of bewildering on a tech news site full of software entrepreneurs. Instead of handling more paperwork with more people, why don't we find ways to automate the paperwork processing using computers? Every other competitive industry streamlined their processes decades ago (and continues to do so) - why is the government exempt from this kind of solution as well? Do we have to accept that millions of people must do useless tasks for the US government? For example, if you require your house to get inspected for code, you may want to increase the size of your planning department so that code inspection can occur within the day. Can the environmental assessment be done in parallel to other necessary paperwork? It's funny you use this as an analogy, because home inspections are notoriously pointless. They tell you stupid things, such as that the step to the house is 11" from ground, while code is 8" - meanwhile totally missing issues in the crawl space because "it is unsafe for us to go in there". I paid $500 to be lulled into complacency, and no amount of money for more inspectors to do the job "faster" would have convinced someone to find the important issues with the house I was about to buy. I'm not interested in paying even more money for more useless information. That's the point - scrub out these useless checks and parades of stupidity, which there is plenty of in both the home-buying process as well as in government.
- kiba 2y ago
  * A comment like this is kind of bewildering on a tech news site full of software entrepreneurs. Instead of handling more paperwork with more people, why don't we find ways to automate the paperwork processing using computers? Every other competitive industry streamlined their processes decades ago (and continues to do so) - why is the government exempt from this kind of solution as well? Do we have to accept that millions of people must do useless tasks for the US government?* Why not both? Some paperwork aren't boilerplate unnecessary cruft and required human judgement. There is some paperwork needed but it isn't certainly no paperwork needed. It's funny you use this as an analogy, because home inspections are notoriously pointless. They tell you stupid things, such as that the step to the house is 11" from ground, while code is 8" - meanwhile totally missing issues in the crawl space because "it is unsafe for us to go in there". I paid $500 to be lulled into complacency, and no amount of money for more inspectors to do the job "faster" would have convinced someone to find the important issues with the house I was about to buy. I'm not interested in paying even more money for more useless information. That's the point - scrub out these useless checks and parades of stupidity, which there is plenty of in both the home-buying process as well as in government. I am only addressing one part of possibles issues that the government might have. If you want speedy and quality code inspection, you must be willing to staff and pay for it. Regulation isn't simply a matter of too much or too little but also quality.
  - syndicatedjelly 2y ago
    Yes, I think we are largely on the same page. Some regulation is good. Some is bad. Let's get rid of the bad, and streamline the good, so that compliance can be achieved with efficiency.
- llamaimperative 2y ago
  Home inspections are notoriously claimed to be pointless. Until housing turns into a lemon market.
  - TheNewsIsHere 2y ago
    That’s a succinct example of the faulty premise that underlies the much of this discourse. The government is a vast enterprise in many senses, but it isn’t a business operation in the same way a corporation or an LLC is a business. Applying traditional business thinking to government frequently fails because the purposes and goals are not the same. Government is neither for-profit nor non-profit. Its remit is entirely different from any other kind of structure.

by kiba 2y ago

derekp7 2y ago

There is a good analysis (from a corporate perspective) in The Phoenix Project.

llamaimperative 2y ago

Yep, larger government with (arguably) a smaller/tighter mandate.

syndicatedjelly 2y ago

If you want a speedy government and speedy paperwork, it might be worth asking if we could increase headcount to handle tasks, preferably in parallel if possible. A comment like this is kind of bewildering on a tech news site full of software entrepreneurs. Instead of handling more paperwork with more people, why don't we find ways to automate the paperwork processing using computers? Every other competitive industry streamlined their processes decades ago (and continues to do so) - why is the government exempt from this kind of solution as well? Do we have to accept that millions of people must do useless tasks for the US government? For example, if you require your house to get inspected for code, you may want to increase the size of your planning department so that code inspection can occur within the day. Can the environmental assessment be done in parallel to other necessary paperwork? It's funny you use this as an analogy, because home inspections are notoriously pointless. They tell you stupid things, such as that the step to the house is 11" from ground, while code is 8" - meanwhile totally missing issues in the crawl space because "it is unsafe for us to go in there". I paid $500 to be lulled into complacency, and no amount of money for more inspectors to do the job "faster" would have convinced someone to find the important issues with the house I was about to buy. I'm not interested in paying even more money for more useless information. That's the point - scrub out these useless checks and parades of stupidity, which there is plenty of in both the home-buying process as well as in government.

kiba 2y ago
* A comment like this is kind of bewildering on a tech news site full of software entrepreneurs. Instead of handling more paperwork with more people, why don't we find ways to automate the paperwork processing using computers? Every other competitive industry streamlined their processes decades ago (and continues to do so) - why is the government exempt from this kind of solution as well? Do we have to accept that millions of people must do useless tasks for the US government?* Why not both? Some paperwork aren't boilerplate unnecessary cruft and required human judgement. There is some paperwork needed but it isn't certainly no paperwork needed. It's funny you use this as an analogy, because home inspections are notoriously pointless. They tell you stupid things, such as that the step to the house is 11" from ground, while code is 8" - meanwhile totally missing issues in the crawl space because "it is unsafe for us to go in there". I paid $500 to be lulled into complacency, and no amount of money for more inspectors to do the job "faster" would have convinced someone to find the important issues with the house I was about to buy. I'm not interested in paying even more money for more useless information. That's the point - scrub out these useless checks and parades of stupidity, which there is plenty of in both the home-buying process as well as in government. I am only addressing one part of possibles issues that the government might have. If you want speedy and quality code inspection, you must be willing to staff and pay for it. Regulation isn't simply a matter of too much or too little but also quality.
- syndicatedjelly 2y ago
  Yes, I think we are largely on the same page. Some regulation is good. Some is bad. Let's get rid of the bad, and streamline the good, so that compliance can be achieved with efficiency.
llamaimperative 2y ago
Home inspections are notoriously claimed to be pointless. Until housing turns into a lemon market.
- TheNewsIsHere 2y ago
  That’s a succinct example of the faulty premise that underlies the much of this discourse. The government is a vast enterprise in many senses, but it isn’t a business operation in the same way a corporation or an LLC is a business. Applying traditional business thinking to government frequently fails because the purposes and goals are not the same. Government is neither for-profit nor non-profit. Its remit is entirely different from any other kind of structure.