4 ms·

Shocking, but not terribly surprising from a business perspective... From everyone I know who's worked there, the operation was just a thinly veiled wrapper aro

by mjr00 2y ago

Shocking, but not terribly surprising from a business perspective... From everyone I know who's worked there, the operation was just a thinly veiled wrapper around human accountants. The plan for profitability was that they'd eventually automate the human part away, but eventually never came. My condolences to the employees who now have a stressful new year.

Spivak 2y ago
> The plan for profitability was that they'd eventually automate the human part away, but eventually never came. Every. Damn. Time. I've fought and lost this battle at so many companies with directors and executives who were genuinely completely delusional about how much of a human process could be automated. It's always the tasks that are easy and don't take up much time. If you end up solving one of the genuinely hard problems then you should just pivot to packaging and selling that as your business.
- jegolden1 2y ago
  Accounting startups that rely on automation are doomed to fail. Customers demand perfect accounting at automation-reflective prices. It’s just not possible. Check out story of scalefactor.
  - Spivak 2y ago
    Well yeah, if you're saying you can automate something, something as tractable as bookkeeping, then why would customers expect less quality? It should be perfect, and instant— that's the entire sales pitch of having a machine do it in the first place. It might not be optimal, a human tax professional might be more creative and save you money, but it should always produce correct forms.
- AlotOfReading 2y ago
  It's how virtually all automation works. You figure out how to make a computer do 80% of the problem domain and give humans tools to intervene effectively when you're outside that subset. Many of the most reliable systems you can think of work this way, from the mail, to taxes, to factories, to autopilot systems. The key to building them is to be intentional about what you're doing and especially avoid blaming the humans for the system's failures.

by mjr00 2y ago

Spivak 2y ago

> The plan for profitability was that they'd eventually automate the human part away, but eventually never came. Every. Damn. Time. I've fought and lost this battle at so many companies with directors and executives who were genuinely completely delusional about how much of a human process could be automated. It's always the tasks that are easy and don't take up much time. If you end up solving one of the genuinely hard problems then you should just pivot to packaging and selling that as your business.

jegolden1 2y ago
Accounting startups that rely on automation are doomed to fail. Customers demand perfect accounting at automation-reflective prices. It’s just not possible. Check out story of scalefactor.
- Spivak 2y ago
  Well yeah, if you're saying you can automate something, something as tractable as bookkeeping, then why would customers expect less quality? It should be perfect, and instant— that's the entire sales pitch of having a machine do it in the first place. It might not be optimal, a human tax professional might be more creative and save you money, but it should always produce correct forms.
AlotOfReading 2y ago
It's how virtually all automation works. You figure out how to make a computer do 80% of the problem domain and give humans tools to intervene effectively when you're outside that subset. Many of the most reliable systems you can think of work this way, from the mail, to taxes, to factories, to autopilot systems. The key to building them is to be intentional about what you're doing and especially avoid blaming the humans for the system's failures.