3 ms·

> The problem is that at a lot of big companies, process becomes a substitute for thinking. You’re encouraged to behave like a little gear in a complex machine.

> The problem is that at a lot of big companies, process becomes a substitute for thinking. You’re encouraged to behave like a little gear in a complex machine. Frankly, it allows you to keep people who aren’t that smart, who aren’t that creative. Sounds like so many complaints about the enterprise software landscape, and has certainly proved to be true in my own experience. Codified processes usually start with the guise of open communications and education, either because someone wasn't thinking or because of a pressing need to get a few people on the same page. They are soon adopted and enforced as dogma by natural-born bureaucrats who crawl out of the woodwork from seemingly nowhere. It must be an incredible challenge to fight in any large organization, looking at it from the top down. So far, Musk appears to be doing an admirable job. These things tend to last only as long as a real visionary is at the helm. He is young so hopefully can keep at it for a while longer still, hopefully even long enough to get us to Mars. From this article, he didn't actually say to much about such plans. I wonder if it's just a judicious amount of prudence on his part or if even he fears it may not be feasible in his lifetime.

minikites 14y ago
This is something I've been struggling with. I see the two paths to success being mutually exclusive; throw out process and go big or channel process into success. See this link and the ensuing discussion: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4727045 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4727045 This view is to cultivate habits and work consistently and methodically every day. Elon's view is to toss out process and dream big. What is the best way to reconcile these two opinions? Is it a matter of scale (i.e. personal process but enterprise chutzpah?)
- josh33 14y ago
  Process is not a replacement for thinking. It's a tool to be used as enabling repetitive tasks to be higher quality and allowing the doer to focus on higher thought.
- saraid216 14y ago
  > What is the best way to reconcile these two opinions? Is it a matter of scale (i.e. personal process but enterprise chutzpah?) It's a matter of experience. Process is defined by the boundary at which things start to fray. You can only find that boundary by running into it a few times and recognizing where it is. It gets much, much more complex as you grow in size because the fraying can happen as part of how two individuals interact. The more individuals you have, the riskier it is to assume the boundary is farther out, and thus the safer it is to constrict using process; there are interpersonal boundaries on top of your personal comfort zones. If you don't need the habits and consistency, then you don't need them. Don't do that. Go big until you fail. Figure out why you failed. Account for it next time. That accounting is process. And probe your process occasionally to make sure it's still valid, too.
sandee 14y ago
His company is geared towards a clear mission which is very motivational to the engineers and managers in team. When a company drives towards a goal with a fanatical zeal, nothing else matters than achieving the milestones. Motivation towards achieving breakthrough achievements will mask the tendency which creates underperformance. It would be wrong to compare it with any other traditional big company. The structures built around traditional big business work because of some reasons. Once they achieve the goals of easier space flight and mission to mars and when it become easier or less motivational, probably they will face similar issues like most companies. But i don't this Musk cares a damn about that ... and he shouldn't
cdavid 14y ago
Processes are a bit like abstractions in software engineering. They allow you to build on top of it to avoid having to think about everything, but if you don't understand your abstractions, in the long run, you're not going to do anything great. To paraphrase Bezos, the problem is not process, but the mindless application of them (see this interview: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.07/bezos_pr.html http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.07/bezos_pr.html).
sahilz79 14y ago
This observation goes well beyond enterprise software - this is preferred modus operandi of "legacy" companies, and in my mind the primary reason anyone that prefers autonomy has a hard time working for these companies. When you are the size of Walmart, unless you are strategist working for Walmart corporate, you want your employees to behave like soldiers in the military. This is not surprising given that the modern multi-national corporation, was built on the top down hierarchical model shaped after the military industrial complex. Whats further true is that, this was arguably the best way to organize a large group of people towards a common objective (increasingly share holder value in the case of the better run organizations, or executive compensation in the case of the worst type of these organizations) until very recently. However this model has run its course, and will have a very hard time defending itself against smaller, but very scalable and nimble organizations. Just as the US military realized post 9/11 that it was equipped to fight 20th century wars, but not 21st century wars, which look much more like insurgencies and are way more distributed in nature, large MNC's will have to realize that their top down, process first organization structure is doomed to fail! All we need now is more entrepreneurs to look away from social media a bit and follow Musk's lead in creating real, but more scalable and nimble companies.

minikites 14y ago

This is something I've been struggling with. I see the two paths to success being mutually exclusive; throw out process and go big or channel process into success. See this link and the ensuing discussion: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4727045 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4727045 This view is to cultivate habits and work consistently and methodically every day. Elon's view is to toss out process and dream big. What is the best way to reconcile these two opinions? Is it a matter of scale (i.e. personal process but enterprise chutzpah?)

josh33 14y ago
Process is not a replacement for thinking. It's a tool to be used as enabling repetitive tasks to be higher quality and allowing the doer to focus on higher thought.
saraid216 14y ago
> What is the best way to reconcile these two opinions? Is it a matter of scale (i.e. personal process but enterprise chutzpah?) It's a matter of experience. Process is defined by the boundary at which things start to fray. You can only find that boundary by running into it a few times and recognizing where it is. It gets much, much more complex as you grow in size because the fraying can happen as part of how two individuals interact. The more individuals you have, the riskier it is to assume the boundary is farther out, and thus the safer it is to constrict using process; there are interpersonal boundaries on top of your personal comfort zones. If you don't need the habits and consistency, then you don't need them. Don't do that. Go big until you fail. Figure out why you failed. Account for it next time. That accounting is process. And probe your process occasionally to make sure it's still valid, too.

sandee 14y ago

His company is geared towards a clear mission which is very motivational to the engineers and managers in team. When a company drives towards a goal with a fanatical zeal, nothing else matters than achieving the milestones. Motivation towards achieving breakthrough achievements will mask the tendency which creates underperformance. It would be wrong to compare it with any other traditional big company. The structures built around traditional big business work because of some reasons. Once they achieve the goals of easier space flight and mission to mars and when it become easier or less motivational, probably they will face similar issues like most companies. But i don't this Musk cares a damn about that ... and he shouldn't

cdavid 14y ago

Processes are a bit like abstractions in software engineering. They allow you to build on top of it to avoid having to think about everything, but if you don't understand your abstractions, in the long run, you're not going to do anything great. To paraphrase Bezos, the problem is not process, but the mindless application of them (see this interview: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.07/bezos_pr.html http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.07/bezos_pr.html).

sahilz79 14y ago

This observation goes well beyond enterprise software - this is preferred modus operandi of "legacy" companies, and in my mind the primary reason anyone that prefers autonomy has a hard time working for these companies. When you are the size of Walmart, unless you are strategist working for Walmart corporate, you want your employees to behave like soldiers in the military. This is not surprising given that the modern multi-national corporation, was built on the top down hierarchical model shaped after the military industrial complex. Whats further true is that, this was arguably the best way to organize a large group of people towards a common objective (increasingly share holder value in the case of the better run organizations, or executive compensation in the case of the worst type of these organizations) until very recently. However this model has run its course, and will have a very hard time defending itself against smaller, but very scalable and nimble organizations. Just as the US military realized post 9/11 that it was equipped to fight 20th century wars, but not 21st century wars, which look much more like insurgencies and are way more distributed in nature, large MNC's will have to realize that their top down, process first organization structure is doomed to fail! All we need now is more entrepreneurs to look away from social media a bit and follow Musk's lead in creating real, but more scalable and nimble companies.