Re: YOU are responsible, even when YOU are not to blame (long)

[Andrew Plato <gilliankitty -at- yahoo -dot- com>]

<SteveFJong -at- aol -dot- com> wrote ...

> You claim that in attempt to fix errors, organizations often fail to fix 
> errors? That sounds like something you made up to disagree with me. Can you 
> cite an example of this? 

I claimed that in an attempt to seek out the root causes of errors,
organizations (or individuals) become obsessed with justifications and fail to
just fix what went wrong in the first place. 

Example, a document has consistently wrong data about a product feature. The
writer becomes obsessed with figuring out why he got the wrong data (or who
gave it to him) that he gets distracted and does not just plant his butt in a
chair and fix the doc. The need to justify an error is so powerful that it
overrides the need to repair that error. 

> Clearly. What's Japan's share of the US auto market these days? How about the

> consumer-electronics market? How about the watch market? They've given back 
> few of their gains.

The funny thing is, Steve, most Jap cars are now made in the US. All Accords,
Civics (Honda), Corrollas, Camrys, Matrix (Toyota), most Mitsubishi models, and
some Mazda models sold in North America are built in North America. 

Japan holds a sizable market here, but by no means are they a break-out leader.
Actually Malysia, Taiwan, Singapore, and other Asia areas have equally vibrant
share of the electronics markets.

> Why? Because you say so? The idea is patently true, and it's patently obvious

> by inspection. Quality is consistent, and randomness and disorganization will

> not give consistent results.

Consistency does not equal quality. Moreover, consistency rarely leads to
ingenuity. And in the high-tech markets, ingenuity is critical to market
success. This is particularly true of software companies (where many of us
work). 

> >> In a software development environment, manufacturing models don't work.
> 
> Why? Because you say so? They do work.

They don't, because they assume a few things:

- Workers can be given discreet, easily measurable tasks.
- Personal initiative and ingenuity is unnecessary
- There is a well defined input and output (input design, output finished
product)

In software development (and most high-tech development environments), these
issues are not true. Developers often have vague goals with many possible
outcomes. Personal ingenuity is critical to development of new technologies.
And there is rarely a well-defined input/output matrix. Many development
projects start with one goal, and wind up producing something else. That's what
flexibility and chaos can do. Give people the room they need to be creative and
ingenious. 

> Watts Humphrey, who created the 
> Software Capability Maturity Model, is a software guy. In fact, he was 
> manager of an IBM software development organization before he went to 
> Carnegie-Mellon. He likes to ask skeptics of his methods, "I managed 1,000 
> engineers. How many do you have?" When you have responsibility at that level,

> you lose patience with lone wolves. I managed a group that turned out 100 
> documents a year. They weren't 100 unique documents, and we learned the 
> efficiencies we needed to produce that much work with the staffing available.

IBM is NOTORIOUS for being a process obsessed monstrosity. And when was the
last time IBM had a huge software hit. IBM makes the grand, whopping majority
of their income in consulting. Handing out advice to people who, apparently,
think its important.


> You contradict your previous argument, and you don't understand root-cause 
> analysis. You won't recognize systemic problems through individual analysis.

You will when you accept the axiom that a system is only as good as the people
working in it. 

This is where you and I differ. I see a team of people and I see their
potential as a factor of their skills, capabilities, dedication, etc.  You see
a team as resources to fill requirements. As such, when a problem happens, I
see it as a breakdown in the function of the people. You, apparently see it as
a breakdown in a system. 

My preference is to have the individuals analyze their own work and ask
themselves "how can I do my job, and fulfill the organization's objectives
better?" This is what professionals do. They are on a constant continuum of
self-improvement.

Your preference is to perform some rigid analysis of the system. And design
more processes and procedures to rule out the chance for error. This is what
bureaucrats do. They are on a constant continuum of organizing things and
striving for some zero-friction cycle. 

My methods assume right from the start that problems will happen. Yours assumes
that problems won't happen. 

I know for a fact, problems always happen. And no process ever created in the
entire history of humanity will alter that little universal reality. 

Andrew Plato 

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
http://tax.yahoo.com

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Purchase RoboHelp X3 in April and receive a $100 mail-in 
rebate, plus FREE RoboScreenCapture and WebHelp Merge Module.  
Order here: http://www.ehelp.com/products/robohelp/


   Help celebrate TECHWR-L's 10th Anniversary starting this month!
Check out the contests at http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/special/contests/
Happy birthday to you, happy birthday to you, happy birthday TECHWR-L....

---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as:
archive -at- raycomm -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
Send administrative questions to ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com -dot-  Visit
http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.