Beyond Automation

Question

Post reply

Beyond Automation

Steve Jones - SSC Editor

SSC Guru

Points: 736150
More actions
August 19, 2010 at 12:41 am

#225976

Comments posted to this topic are about the item Beyond Automation

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 21 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply

paul.knibbs SSCoach Points: 15320 More actions · Answer 1

Should there be a link to the blog you're talking about somewhere in the article? 🙂

WillC9999 Mr or Mrs. 500 Points: 520 More actions · Answer 2

Never a truer word said Steve 🙂

Almost all the problematic projects I have worked on have ocurred where an IT solution is sought to a complex process that is either not properly understood, or where a human element is needed in decision making. 'Woolly' processes need to be clarified and broken down into understandable chunks *before* anyone even turns on a computer. And if it turns out one of those chunks is just not 'digitisable' into a bunch of Boolean algebra then fine, leave it with a human - they are so much better at fuzzy thinking than computers.

Too often though folk seek to blame IT solutions for failing to deliver when really the underlying problem is with the process itself. Computers cannot make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

steven.malone Say Hey Kid Points: 688 More actions · Answer 3

Malone's law of tedium: It is inherent in the definition of tedium that tedious tasks are good candidates for automation.

First corollary: To find tedious tasks walk through the office and listen for the sound of someone hitting the same pattern of keys over and over.

Second corollary: The greatest bang for the buck is more often associated with small bucks than big bangs. e.g. A handful of Word macros and a couple of templates: cost no more than 4 to 8 hours consulting; benefit 1 hour per week per person - 6 people over a year = 300 hours or BfB of 75 to 150

I'll bet others can come up with many more examples.

jcrawf02 SSC-Insane Points: 24198 More actions · Answer 4

steven.malone (8/19/2010)
Malone's law of tedium: It is inherent in the definition of tedium that tedious tasks are good candidates for automation.
First corollary: To find tedious tasks walk through the office and listen for the sound of someone hitting the same pattern of keys over and over.
Second corollary: The greatest bang for the buck is more often associated with small bucks than big bangs. e.g. A handful of Word macros and a couple of templates: cost no more than 4 to 8 hours consulting; benefit 1 hour per week per person - 6 people over a year = 300 hours or BfB of 75 to 150
I'll bet others can come up with many more examples.

That's a great point, although here, our most tedious tasks actually involve a Print command, a ruler and a highlighter. No question that there's an ROI there...

---------------------------------------------------------
How best to post your question[/url]
How to post performance problems[/url]
Tally Table:What it is and how it replaces a loop[/url]

"stewsterl 80804 (10/16/2009)I guess when you stop and try to understand the solution provided you not only learn, but save yourself some headaches when you need to make any slight changes."

Steve Jones - SSC Editor SSC Guru Points: 736150 More actions · Answer 5

paul.knibbs (8/19/2010)
Should there be a link to the blog you're talking about somewhere in the article? 🙂

Doh! I'm an ID-Ten-Tee

Corrected and here: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/service-oriented/when-processes-are-beyond-the-reach-of-automation/5332?tag=mantle_skin;content

paul.knibbs SSCoach Points: 15320 More actions · Answer 6

Having thought about it, I'm not so sure that automation always needs a human in the loop. The (simplistic) example I'd give is that I recently drove a car with a DSG gearbox--e.g. it's a seven-speed gearbox where you can choose to either let it change gear by itself, or change gear manually. I tried doing the manual gearchanges for a bit, and then after a while just left it in Drive and let it do it by itself--it was a lot smoother that way!

So, I suppose the answer I'd give is this: as the system becomes larger and more complex it is more necessary to keep human supervision as a part of it, but there are plenty of simpler designs where having human overview would add so much overhead that it would defeat the purpose of automating it in the first place.

WillC9999 Mr or Mrs. 500 Points: 520 More actions · Answer 7

An interesting example. So someone came up with the DSG device and said to their boss

'So I think we should implement this superior system, and the old duff one - and doing both will cost us more'. And the boss said..'OK, hang the expense!'

I like this in principle. You have a new idea and run it in parallel until folk just give up on the old because they want to, rather than it being an order from above. It's nice, soft and user-friendly - but is it actually good for the business? Would a more ruthless 'no way, implement the DSG only and lets save money!' be better?

I think I might be losing my metaphor a bit but the similarity with computer systems design (hell, DSG probably *is* a computer system!) strikes me as interesting.

paul.knibbs SSCoach Points: 15320 More actions · Answer 8

Well, it's not quite like that...when you drive the DSG car in manual mode it's a sequential gearbox (like motorcycles and F1 cars), so you just tap the lever forward to change up and backward to change down. It's not like you have a manual gearbox in parallel with an automatic one! 😀

Revenant SSC-Forever Points: 42467 More actions · Answer 9

Back to Steve's topic, I think that there are processes that connot be automated - hiring comes to mind.

david_wendelken SSCrazy Points: 2388 More actions · Answer 10

Many of these systems get into trouble because managers tell IT staffers what they wish would happen instead of what will happen - and IT folks think they are hearing what actually happens.

The system can't conform to reality from the start.

steven.malone Say Hey Kid Points: 688 More actions · Answer 11

paul.knibbs (8/19/2010)
Having thought about it, I'm not so sure that automation always needs a human in the loop. The (simplistic) example I'd give is that I recently drove a car with a DSG gearbox--e.g. it's a seven-speed gearbox where you can choose to either let it change gear by itself, or change gear manually. I tried doing the manual gearchanges for a bit, and then after a while just left it in Drive and let it do it by itself--it was a lot smoother that way!
So, I suppose the answer I'd give is this: as the system becomes larger and more complex it is more necessary to keep human supervision as a part of it, but there are plenty of simpler designs where having human overview would add so much overhead that it would defeat the purpose of automating it in the first place.

I think you make a good point for eliminating human interaction with the fiddly bits. With seven gears the shifting got pretty tedious pretty quickly. See Malone's law above <grin>

However given the unintended acceleration problems in the news, let's keep the manual intervention of shifting to neutral.

Steve Jones - SSC Editor SSC Guru Points: 736150 More actions · Answer 12

paul.knibbs (8/19/2010)
Having thought about it, I'm not so sure that automation always needs a human in the loop. The (simplistic) example I'd give is that I recently drove a car with a DSG gearbox--e.g. it's a seven-speed gearbox where you can choose to either let it change gear by itself, or change gear manually. I tried doing the manual gearchanges for a bit, and then after a while just left it in Drive and let it do it by itself--it was a lot smoother that way!

I find myself doing that. Some of it is the experience of pressing buttons or tapping a lever one way is fundamentally unsatisfying compared to the throw of the lever in different directions.

It can be a pain, but I also love shifting. I would be happy with an electric car, just give me my 5 speed gearbox.

I think this is something to think about in software. Sometimes the hassles of the process are actually good in that the person can think through what they're doing, there's a delay, they can double check things. We might not want to completely remove that.

Sioban Krzywicki One Orange Chip Points: 27770 More actions · Answer 13

Steve Jones - Editor (8/19/2010)
paul.knibbs (8/19/2010)
Having thought about it, I'm not so sure that automation always needs a human in the loop. The (simplistic) example I'd give is that I recently drove a car with a DSG gearbox--e.g. it's a seven-speed gearbox where you can choose to either let it change gear by itself, or change gear manually. I tried doing the manual gearchanges for a bit, and then after a while just left it in Drive and let it do it by itself--it was a lot smoother that way!
I find myself doing that. Some of it is the experience of pressing buttons or tapping a lever one way is fundamentally unsatisfying compared to the throw of the lever in different directions.
It can be a pain, but I also love shifting. I would be happy with an electric car, just give me my 5 speed gearbox.
I think this is something to think about in software. Sometimes the hassles of the process are actually good in that the person can think through what they're doing, there's a delay, they can double check things. We might not want to completely remove that.

Lack of a manual transmission almost kept me from getting my Prius.

The car is so cool technologically in many other ways that it overrode my distate for automatics.

--------------------------------------
When you encounter a problem, if the solution isn't readily evident go back to the start and check your assumptions.
--------------------------------------
It’s unpleasantly like being drunk.
What’s so unpleasant about being drunk?
You ask a glass of water. -- Douglas Adams

Sioban Krzywicki One Orange Chip Points: 27770 More actions · Answer 14

Revenant (8/19/2010)
Back to Steve's topic, I think that there are processes that connot be automated - hiring comes to mind.

I'm not so sure. The goal of automation isn't perfection, it is to do the same as a manual task at least as well. Most of the hiring I've seen is so screwed up that it'd be hard for automation to do worse.

--------------------------------------
When you encounter a problem, if the solution isn't readily evident go back to the start and check your assumptions.
--------------------------------------
It’s unpleasantly like being drunk.
What’s so unpleasant about being drunk?
You ask a glass of water. -- Douglas Adams