3 ms·

If you know exactly what you are waiting for and you know exactly what you will do when it happens, then you should probably automate and optimize that process

If you know exactly what you are waiting for and you know exactly what you will do when it happens, then you should probably automate and optimize that process instead of spending your time building some fancy graphics. And if you don't know what you are waiting for nor what you will do about it, you don't need real time metrics.

error54 12y ago
What if it's an event that happens infrequently, say 2 times year? In such cases, it wouldn't be worthwhile to spend the time automating when it's easier/cheaper to take manual action.
- dkarapetyan 12y ago
  No, automation is always the answer. When you are forced to formalize processes with code you invariably find all sorts of hidden assumptions. This has happened to me every single time I've tried to automate legacy manual processes. There are always hidden assumptions that are unearthed. Unearthing hidden assumptions is always worth the effort.
  - ams6110 12y ago
    http://xkcd.com/1319/ http://xkcd.com/1319/ Or maybe http://xkcd.com/1205/ http://xkcd.com/1205/
    - myhf 12y ago
      Total time spent on automating plus executing is not a very useful metric, because preparation time and reaction time are not interchangeable.
  - coldtea 12y ago
    A hidden assumption behind what you wrote is that all automation is like the scripts you've written to automate your processes. There are things which automating them would take lots of man-months and tens of thousands of dollars, so much that the effort is not worth it from the savings -- or from any "hidden assumptions" you discover.
    - jbergens 12y ago
      You should also consider how much it costs you to miss a part of a process that is manually carried out but that could be automated. If it really expensive to miss something then automation might be a good idea even for simple tasks.
- saosebastiao 12y ago
  If it truly is not worth the automation, you still don't need real time dashboards, you just need an alarm.

error54 12y ago

What if it's an event that happens infrequently, say 2 times year? In such cases, it wouldn't be worthwhile to spend the time automating when it's easier/cheaper to take manual action.

dkarapetyan 12y ago
No, automation is always the answer. When you are forced to formalize processes with code you invariably find all sorts of hidden assumptions. This has happened to me every single time I've tried to automate legacy manual processes. There are always hidden assumptions that are unearthed. Unearthing hidden assumptions is always worth the effort.
- ams6110 12y ago
  http://xkcd.com/1319/ http://xkcd.com/1319/ Or maybe http://xkcd.com/1205/ http://xkcd.com/1205/
  - myhf 12y ago
    Total time spent on automating plus executing is not a very useful metric, because preparation time and reaction time are not interchangeable.
- coldtea 12y ago
  A hidden assumption behind what you wrote is that all automation is like the scripts you've written to automate your processes. There are things which automating them would take lots of man-months and tens of thousands of dollars, so much that the effort is not worth it from the savings -- or from any "hidden assumptions" you discover.
  - jbergens 12y ago
    You should also consider how much it costs you to miss a part of a process that is manually carried out but that could be automated. If it really expensive to miss something then automation might be a good idea even for simple tasks.
saosebastiao 12y ago
If it truly is not worth the automation, you still don't need real time dashboards, you just need an alarm.