It is because we are no longer improving our society's "hardware" (read: infrastructure). No matter how quickly i can design a BIM model using state of the art software; i am still constrained by the fact that it takes me an hour to drive to work, an hour to my client's house, and then an hour back to the office, and then an hour home.
Why Doesn't Software Show Up in Productivity?
41–50 of 212 posts
Re: Why Doesn't Software Show Up in Productivity?
#42This article makes me think of the woodworker's dilemma. You might start working with cutting, planing, joining and finishing wood because you want to make a chair or end table, and you like the idea of learning to do it yourself, maybe saving some money, or at least getting some extra tools out of the process, and having some pride in your work. But before you know it, you've spent 4 years accumulating tools, but mo…
I that while you observation is true the cause is something else. When looking to do something productive (write software or apply wood working skills) we are a mostly a victim of our on worldly experience. A software engineer lives and breathes software development and so it's only natural that he only sees software problems and so commences with implementing solutions for those problems.
Sometimes there are other problems but it's really our live experiences that limit us from building enough of an affinity with them to naturally want to solve them.
Re: Why Doesn't Software Show Up in Productivity?
#43Extremely worthwhile question, long overdue. Productivity, especially in relevant areas like administration, stagnated despite computers hitting every desk. I read the Cowen book (Complacent Class) at the same time I was reader Graeber's "Bullshit Jobs." Heterodox writers from both sides of the spectrum. Same observation. On the face of it, it doesn't make sense. How could, for example, a local college's administrati…
I've had a suspicion for some years that productivity increases from the addition of computers and software to an operation is very uneven, and that apparent great progress overall is because it's a 1000x improvement in select areas while being a 0.5-1.05x change in most areas, with somewhat negative change perhaps even being the norm.
Perhaps. Why though?
Why aren't HR, accounting or other such tasks more productive with computers than without?
Re: Why Doesn't Software Show Up in Productivity?
#44This is off topic a bit since the article was really talking about something tangently different, and it's probably a really unpopular thing to say, but it's been in my mind for a while. If you look at the worlds population growth rate, you can see that it is beginning to level off. That world of 10 billion that we were all preparing for several years ago is probably not going to come. If the population stabalizes, o…
Its a different discussion, quite off topic. When the boomers go into retirement, our current economic system with GDP growth focus has a big problem. Our system is based on produce more stuff and buy more stuff. But when the boomers retire, they will buy less stuff. Who will buy supply overhang? Nobody. Even worse, who will pay for the debt incurred to buy overly inflated asset prices, like housing and factories, wh…
I don't disagree it could definitely be a problem with the US, but so far, with immigration, it's not been a problem. As long as our immigration #'s stay up, the US should be fine.
So far it's been a steady state, but it's unknown if that will continue into the future.
Re: Why Doesn't Software Show Up in Productivity?
#45This article makes me think of the woodworker's dilemma. You might start working with cutting, planing, joining and finishing wood because you want to make a chair or end table, and you like the idea of learning to do it yourself, maybe saving some money, or at least getting some extra tools out of the process, and having some pride in your work. But before you know it, you've spent 4 years accumulating tools, but mo…
As a woodworker, i've noticed 90% of time is easily spent on setting the tools up. Jigs help save time because they let you spend less time setting up tools. Economy of scales are gained when you can get more products out of the same number of tool setups.
Very much this. I also work in wood and it amazes people that it can often be easier to make 5 or 10 of something than just one simply because of the jigs we make.
Re: Why Doesn't Software Show Up in Productivity?
#46This article makes me think of the woodworker's dilemma. You might start working with cutting, planing, joining and finishing wood because you want to make a chair or end table, and you like the idea of learning to do it yourself, maybe saving some money, or at least getting some extra tools out of the process, and having some pride in your work. But before you know it, you've spent 4 years accumulating tools, but mo…
A few nits to pick as a woodworker: 1) You never save money building it yourself (at least not in comparison to a standard consumer option, like a chair or table from your local furniture store. This may hold up if you compare what you build to high-end hardwood furniture. But with the cost of tools, you're probably still losing money if this is just a hobby) 2) 90% of my enjoyment of woodworking is just being in my…
In stuff like car/van furnishings I tend to believe you can save a lot since its not yet an IKEA like market.
Re: Why Doesn't Software Show Up in Productivity?
#47Extremely worthwhile question, long overdue. Productivity, especially in relevant areas like administration, stagnated despite computers hitting every desk. I read the Cowen book (Complacent Class) at the same time I was reader Graeber's "Bullshit Jobs." Heterodox writers from both sides of the spectrum. Same observation. On the face of it, it doesn't make sense. How could, for example, a local college's administrati…
Prevented waste is a lot of it. Factories used to produce full on until inventory built up too much, and then they did clearance sales to empty it, or sometimes sent it right to a landfill. Now with just in time there is less produced than before, but it is only produced as needed, so the total produced is less, but what is produced is what is needed.
Re: Why Doesn't Software Show Up in Productivity?
#48This article makes me think of the woodworker's dilemma. You might start working with cutting, planing, joining and finishing wood because you want to make a chair or end table, and you like the idea of learning to do it yourself, maybe saving some money, or at least getting some extra tools out of the process, and having some pride in your work. But before you know it, you've spent 4 years accumulating tools, but mo…
> In fact, you spend 90% of your time building tools. This is a ridiculous exaggeration with almost any wood worker. Making tools and jigs doesn't require much time and someone usually only does it after they have already done something without them at least once. Programming tools are much more difficult to make. You need special skills and most tools aren't made to be easily extended.
I'd argue woodworking tools are harder. People expect physical objects to work correctly, whereas the word has largely come to accept buggy, glitchy software.
Re: Why Doesn't Software Show Up in Productivity?
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've had a suspicion for some years that productivity increases from the addition of computers and software to an operation is very uneven, and that apparent great progress overall is because it's a 1000x improvement in select areas while being a 0.5-1.05x change in most areas, with somewhat negative change perhaps even being the norm.
Perhaps. Why though? Why aren't HR, accounting or other such tasks more productive with computers than without?
With paper, you do it your way, which maps to the organisation's way at both ends (and is probably just a minor improvement over the organisation's way). With computers, unless you can reprogram the system (which is tricky even for programmers), you're doing it the computer's way, which is often worse than the way the organisation would want to have it set up.
Re: Why Doesn't Software Show Up in Productivity?
#50"VisiCalc took 20 hours of work per week for some people and turned it out in 15 minutes and let them become much more creative." - Dan Bricklin
It's interesting to me that VisiCalc (1979) and its successors (Lotus 1-2-3 and Excel) undoubtedly made some key business jobs vastly more productive and yet software spreadsheets don't really make a dent in the productivity numbers. I'd argue that software spreadsheets are a 'management technology' as the article defines them, but that they are a counter to the article's claim that management technologies spread slowly. They've been widely adopted by businesses of all scales, starting from the introduction of VisiCalc.
Because of this, I wonder whether we are measuring productivity properly