Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The IT Productivity Paradox (2015)

cs.stanford.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–56 of 56 posts

Re: The IT Productivity Paradox (2015)

#51

Post by vouaobrasil »

vundercind wrote: post #34
vouaobrasil wrote: post #5

I think a lot of this is down to too much choice. There are many papers on this in psychology, but for example, from [1]: "Findings from 3 experimental studies starkly challenge this implicit assumption that having more choices is necessarily more intrinsically motivating than having fewer. These experiments, which were conducted in both field and laboratory settings, show that people are more likely to purchase gour…

> Computers aren't really giving us too many benefits. I suspect if we were any good at accounting for this stuff, we’d find that 95% of applications of computers have a 0.1x-1.1x multiplier on whatever we’re applying them to, once you factor in the extra costs, but the other 5% is like 5x-500x. Beneficial overall and yet harmful a majority of the time one encounters it.

Indeed, that highlights a very interesting paradox. Computers are immensely useful in certain sorts of tasks, but in others they are rather obstructive even though the integration of them in our lives makes them necessary when they ought not to be.

Re: The IT Productivity Paradox (2015)

#52

Post by realityfactchex »

FLT8 wrote: post #44
tvanantwerp wrote: post #25

Not sure if its a sufficient explanation, but I like what I've heard from Cal Newport about this. More and more self-service IT systems were able to replace a lot of jobs. But the result is that now you are responsible for doing things via IT systems that were previously outsourced to somebody else. E.g., you're booking your own travel instead of using a travel agent. In some sense, things are more efficient because…

I feel this even in my profession as software engineer. It used to be that I could focus on writing good software. Studying the domain, finding abstractions, picking the best language/approach for the problem at hand, designing domain models... Over time the expectations on developers have become greater. We're software builders, and testers. A lot of us have trained to become UNIX/windows/network/infrastructure engi…

Yes. I reflect on this from time to time. While there are some benefits, and hence the existence of the paradox, I am somewhat uncomfortable with this.

On one hand, it seems ludicrous that (assuming some minimum threshold of personal expectations), "everyone" has to learn "everything" in order to even be competitive. This seems odd for a number of reasons IMO: 1) This is the EXACT OPPOSITE of the specialization efficiency gains in economies of scale, etc. From the story about about automotive production, or making just about anything. 2) This has, for many, only recently been possible. 3) Even if "possible", it is still a WHOLE LOT to learn. Far beyond the (current, believed, practical, or desired) capabilities of many.

I think (1) is a reason why a lot of things can seen subjectively "worse" for those who have been around a while. A lot of things are "better", too, of course.

I conjecture a root cause might doing the cheapest thing for short term profit maximization instead of doing the thing most harmonious with the endeavor in the long run (which could be hard to impossible to stomach in a world of quarterly bonuses).

Personally, so far I have consciously chosen to not participate in being a full stack anything person. I have a niche, it is my sweet spot. I can report that this approach can be difficult. It is mildly successful but not greatly so. And given these trends, I think I'm going to figure something else. I frankly don't wish to know and manage everything about all systems (and I also don't think that's necessarily a great idea in many/most scenarios). That some people do is fine with me.

Another sad thought is that these "do anything" people are completely replaceable in the interchangeability sense, even if it costs a pretty penny. And market forces are pushing everyone (conceivably capable) to become "everything people", hence driving cost down and theoretical corporate (though not necessarily human) resilience high.

What are we to do about it? Just adopt this as beautiful, that one can do so much, and how limitless the mind is?

Re: The IT Productivity Paradox (2015)

#53

Post by DrScientist »

Terretta wrote: post #19
DrScientist wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. This is compounded by the process being automated being the 'idealised' one - not taking into account the exceptions and variations. This leads to the 'computer says no' scenario - where people who used to be empowered to fix something can no longer do so because the software doesn't support the operations. There is also another problem - often during the implementation of the software solution - the administ…

> This is compounded by the process being automated being the 'idealised' one - not taking into account the exceptions and variations. On the contrary, generally tools such as Workday support a generally ideal workflow, but buyers spend years "integrating" aka devolving that workflow to mimic the manual toil of before the tool, including often unnecessary exceptions and variations. The end result is often strictly wo…

I'm not suggesting that you should build a tool that deals with all the exceptions and variations in the tool - that would be madness.

I'm suggesting the process overall needs to be able to deal with these exceptions and variations - and it's people who are best at dealing with these fairly ( say in a Workday HR context ).

What you often see is the implementation of an idealised process in the tool, with no way to deal with exceptions - which leads to 'computer says no' scenarios. Everybody knows what the right thing to do is - conceptually it's simple - but nobody seems to know how to make it happen.

Re: The IT Productivity Paradox (2015)

#54

Post by acuozzo »

tvanantwerp wrote: post #25

Not sure if its a sufficient explanation, but I like what I've heard from Cal Newport about this. More and more self-service IT systems were able to replace a lot of jobs. But the result is that now you are responsible for doing things via IT systems that were previously outsourced to somebody else. E.g., you're booking your own travel instead of using a travel agent. In some sense, things are more efficient because…

Related: The WWW + globalization has made even the process of purchasing consumer goods more difficult and stressful.

It's not even a matter of having a paradox of choice. It's that you now often have to spend hours becoming a mini-subject-matter-expert in, e.g., USB-C chargers to make sure you purchase one that won't set the house on fire and is sufficient for your use-case.

Consumer publications & websites (e.g., WireCutter) are in the pocket of BigWidget, so they can't really be relied upon. RTINGS is one notable exception, but I suppose it's just a matter of time with them too.

People with too little leisure time are screwed by this.

Re: The IT Productivity Paradox (2015)

#55

Post by Terretta »

DrScientist wrote: post #53
Terretta wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is compounded by the process being automated being the 'idealised' one - not taking into account the exceptions and variations. On the contrary, generally tools such as Workday support a generally ideal workflow, but buyers spend years "integrating" aka devolving that workflow to mimic the manual toil of before the tool, including often unnecessary exceptions and variations. The end result is often strictly wo…

I'm not suggesting that you should build a tool that deals with all the exceptions and variations in the tool - that would be madness. I'm suggesting the process overall needs to be able to deal with these exceptions and variations - and it's people who are best at dealing with these fairly ( say in a Workday HR context ). What you often see is the implementation of an idealised process in the tool, with no way to de…

FWIW, the tool itself could almost always handle a convenient flow, and exceptions.

At least, that's true of Workday, and most other SaaS I've helped enterprises install.

People don't want that. They need a new tool because the old one generates nothing but complaints, then they want the new tool to do exactly what they used to do. So it too generates nothing but complaints, after the pain of transition.

But what's a SaaS to do, refuse the revenue and share multiple? Right.

Re: The IT Productivity Paradox (2015)

#56

Post by DrScientist »

Terretta wrote: post #55
DrScientist wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not suggesting that you should build a tool that deals with all the exceptions and variations in the tool - that would be madness. I'm suggesting the process overall needs to be able to deal with these exceptions and variations - and it's people who are best at dealing with these fairly ( say in a Workday HR context ). What you often see is the implementation of an idealised process in the tool, with no way to de…

FWIW, the tool itself could almost always handle a convenient flow, and exceptions. At least, that's true of Workday, and most other SaaS I've helped enterprises install. People don't want that . They need a new tool because the old one generates nothing but complaints, then they want the new tool to do exactly what they used to do. So it too generates nothing but complaints, after the pain of transition. But what's…

I have personal experience of Workday - the UI is not great from a user perspective - I suspect a consequence of the generic design that allows configurability.

The whole challenge with software ( and why it keeps getting written again and again ) is the challenge of balancing flexibility with usability. There is difference between whether the software can technically do something and whether people can achieve that task using the software day to day.

The other problem with systems like Workday ( and this isn't Workdays fault per se ) - is that they are used as a mechanism to 'cut' HR operational costs by simply moving the cost from HR to everyone else via 'self-service'.

Actually most people want to simply talk to somebody - explain what they want and have somebody make it happen - 'self service' only really works for frequently done things where the time saving offsets the time taken to try and work out how to do the operation in the tool for the first time ( or the first time in ages ).

Same thing in finance systems - when large companies move from a purchasing team to a 'self-service' model - most line of business departments simply recreate their own purchasing teams as people who order stuff infrequently have no idea how to fill the forms in.

As I said before - it's about thinking about the people in the system, not the tool. Thinking just about the tool leads to tool implementators blaming lazy users and users blaming tools.

Post reply on HN