by bfoks on 9/13/21, 7:20 PM with 40 comments
by Aeolun on 9/14/21, 12:24 AM
I need a guide on how to teach people that have a vested interest in not acknowledging that there might have been a problem in the first place.
by physicsgraph on 9/14/21, 12:11 AM
[0] https://github.com/LappleApple/awesome-leading-and-managing
[1] https://github.com/kdeldycke/awesome-engineering-team-manage...
[2] https://github.com/ankitjaininfo/awesome-managers
[3] https://graphthinking.blogspot.com/2021/04/reading-list-for-...
by fungiblecog on 9/14/21, 12:56 AM
What they want is to maintain the power structure that got them where they are - and want to remain - at all costs.
It’s like asking politicians who got elected using the current system to reform it. It ain’t gonna happen.
by harshreality on 9/13/21, 10:30 PM
Here's a rough summary:
1. Make requirements less dumb.
2. Delete part or process steps. If you're not occasionally adding things back (he says 10%) (ideally in improved versions), you're not removing things often enough.
3. Simplify, optimize, solve. Everyone's trained to jump to this because the educational process requires you to answer a question as posed, when often the question is dumb and shouldn't be dealt with as-stated.
4. Accelerate process
5. Automate
Those tend to blur together at the edges. I'm sure if he formalized this and wrote it down for mass consumption it'd be presented differently, but it's his current mental model.
Process testing - remove unnecessary in-process testing after production line debugging is done. Obviously there are nuances, he's not saying to do no in-process testing, but rather to remove testing which was intended to reveal information once that's already been collected and addressed. He cautions about false positives from in-process testing, and notes most testing can be done end of line with acceptable results.
Finally, it's important to understand the context. The part about part/step deletion in particular, when things get added back 10% of the time, is not appropriate for all development processes. That would have to be adjusted a the specific product and market objective.
by mu_killnine on 9/13/21, 8:51 PM
by CalChris on 9/14/21, 6:06 AM
by loughnane on 9/14/21, 1:25 PM
- 1988 - 1
- 1999 - 1
- 2000 - 1
- 2002 - 1
- 2005 - 1
- 2007 - 2
- 2008 - 1
- 2012 - 1
- 2013 - 1
- 2014 - 2
- 2015 - 3
- 2016 - 3
- 2017 - 1
I'm also reminded of the the recent post on The Creative World's Bullshit Industrial Complex [0]. There are some gems in here but I can't help but feel like a lot of them are just uninspired remixes of what came before. The list I want to see is of the "great management books". Ones that:
- had an effect on firms both in the time the book was published and in subsequent business "generations"
- influenced subsequent works of note.
- remain relevant to business today
Where is that list?
by sandworm101 on 9/14/21, 4:45 AM
by aluciani on 9/13/21, 9:11 PM
by aktuel on 9/13/21, 11:50 PM