3 ms·

You don't have to design a work process such that failure of one deliverable jeopardizes the work down stream. Alternative is to make an asynchronous process -

by DenisM 14y ago

You don't have to design a work process such that failure of one deliverable jeopardizes the work down stream. Alternative is to make an asynchronous process - for each spent you only schedule to build things which don't depend on incomplete work. If there is something you need before you start on a particular work item, you schedule that prerequisite you need as a work item in itself, and then only schedule the downstream work when all prerequisites are complete. You can't make all jobs like this, but that's hardly the point - lots of jobs can be like that, and they aren't only by choice.

nostrademons 14y ago
Yeah, and such "off the critical path" work is very often where creative-but-unstable people end up. My current project is like that; I've done high-priority team work before, but I asked to be put on something off the critical path both so I could take more professional risks and so I could deal with some personal stuff. My point is that if you can only do work off the critical path, you're marginalizing yourself because such work is by definition "on the margins". And if you ever discover something huge that's worthy of investment, they'll have to take it away from you and give it to somebody reliable to lead so that people can work under him. (Many startup founders find themselves in this position; they'll come up with a brilliant breakthrough and then VCs will kick them out and hire an outside CEO because they're fucking up the company. Hell, that's basically what happened to Steve Jobs at Apple the first time around.)
- michaelochurch 14y ago
  There are degrees for all this stuff. I'm probably average or slightly better for reliability because of my health problems (because I have health issues, I don't drink or use drugs, I exercise regularly, and I rarely allow myself to get less than 7 hours of sleep). However, I wouldn't want to be in a job where I have to compete on reliability. If I'm a 9 for creativity and a 5 for reliability, then I'd rather compete based on potential excellence than on my decline curve, knowing that while I won't be the first to drop off, I have no chance of being the last one standing. Forgive my cynicism, but I think that 99% of what determines who can acquire trust in the corporate system is a person's decline curve. That's how people are tested. The winners are the extremely reliable and the sociopaths who can hack the system. Technology is more enlightened, but still corrupted by typical white-collar culture. The importance of reliability depends on the job. You wouldn't want an emotionally unstable person as someone's boss, for sure.

by DenisM 14y ago

nostrademons 14y ago

Yeah, and such "off the critical path" work is very often where creative-but-unstable people end up. My current project is like that; I've done high-priority team work before, but I asked to be put on something off the critical path both so I could take more professional risks and so I could deal with some personal stuff. My point is that if you can only do work off the critical path, you're marginalizing yourself because such work is by definition "on the margins". And if you ever discover something huge that's worthy of investment, they'll have to take it away from you and give it to somebody reliable to lead so that people can work under him. (Many startup founders find themselves in this position; they'll come up with a brilliant breakthrough and then VCs will kick them out and hire an outside CEO because they're fucking up the company. Hell, that's basically what happened to Steve Jobs at Apple the first time around.)

michaelochurch 14y ago
There are degrees for all this stuff. I'm probably average or slightly better for reliability because of my health problems (because I have health issues, I don't drink or use drugs, I exercise regularly, and I rarely allow myself to get less than 7 hours of sleep). However, I wouldn't want to be in a job where I have to compete on reliability. If I'm a 9 for creativity and a 5 for reliability, then I'd rather compete based on potential excellence than on my decline curve, knowing that while I won't be the first to drop off, I have no chance of being the last one standing. Forgive my cynicism, but I think that 99% of what determines who can acquire trust in the corporate system is a person's decline curve. That's how people are tested. The winners are the extremely reliable and the sociopaths who can hack the system. Technology is more enlightened, but still corrupted by typical white-collar culture. The importance of reliability depends on the job. You wouldn't want an emotionally unstable person as someone's boss, for sure.