This idea is great. You could even argue that these scripts actually do something: they allow storing and updating the state of a process. By having these scripts run in a shell rather than in your head, the current state is stored in a machine, not in an unreliable human brain.
Do-nothing scripting: the key to gradual automation
11–20 of 126 posts
Re: Do-nothing scripting: the key to gradual automation
#12Seems basically to be a checklist.
However, I don't think it's a good idea. Checklists are not bad, but they are to be executed by humans.
I think trying to automate an existing human process directly is a mistake. Human processes often have features that only humans can do, such as pattern recognition or adapting to small difference. It's often easier to create a computerized (automated) process from scratch than to try to account for all the edge cases that humans might have to deal with (and do without problems).
(The opposite is also true, processes that computers have no issues with can make trouble for humans. For example, humans have imperfect memory. So if the process asks humans to keep track something for extended periods, it can be difficult.)
Re: Do-nothing scripting: the key to gradual automation
#13This idea is great. You could even argue that these scripts actually do something: they allow storing and updating the state of a process. By having these scripts run in a shell rather than in your head, the current state is stored in a machine, not in an unreliable human brain.
also they allow you to gradually script stuff as you figure it out.
Re: Do-nothing scripting: the key to gradual automation
#14Seems basically to be a checklist. However, I don't think it's a good idea. Checklists are not bad, but they are to be executed by humans. I think trying to automate an existing human process directly is a mistake. Human processes often have features that only humans can do, such as pattern recognition or adapting to small difference. It's often easier to create a computerized (automated) process from scratch than to…
>Checklists are not bad, but they are to be executed by humans.
I disagree. People employ checklists precisely in the situations where it is most critical that every step be executed, in order, as written. The airline industry flies on checklists.
>I think trying to automate an existing human process directly is a mistake. Human processes often have features that only humans can do, such as pattern recognition or adapting to small difference. It's often easier to create a computerized (automated) process from scratch than to try to account for all the edge cases that humans might have to deal with (and do without problems).
Now, you're letting perfect prevent you from ever attempting the good. TFA is explicitly about building a checklist that can morph the automatable steps into automated ones.
Re: Do-nothing scripting: the key to gradual automation
#15Are there any good slack plugins out there that can do this kind of workflow/ state management?
Re: Do-nothing scripting: the key to gradual automation
#16They are do-nothing scripts but it isn't equivalent to say that the scripts do nothing. That is a very important distinction to me.
These scripts organize tasks into flows in a way that makes it possible to split work by logical checkpoints. The tasks between these checkpoints are dependent on one another in the overall flow, but have independent implementations that can be delegated to software or done by humans.
Re: Do-nothing scripting: the key to gradual automation
#17It seems to me that all you want is to document a manual process. Having them documented in dump scripts is no different than having them documented as a guide in your knowledge base .e.g in Confluence or as product requirements.
I can see the usage in an isolated team of a few people that will write these scripts for their own benefit.
I am opposed in general with having scarce information around. Better have everything a single place, whether that's a guide on how to provision a user or is how to add a new endpoint to your API or write a new end to end test.
Re: Do-nothing scripting: the key to gradual automation
#18Seems basically to be a checklist. However, I don't think it's a good idea. Checklists are not bad, but they are to be executed by humans. I think trying to automate an existing human process directly is a mistake. Human processes often have features that only humans can do, such as pattern recognition or adapting to small difference. It's often easier to create a computerized (automated) process from scratch than to…
Well, the specific problem it addresses is:
1. We have a tedious manual checklist 2. We’d like it to be fully automated 3. How do we get there from here??
You’re correct to say that if the process had been fully automated from the start it may well have been implemented very differently. But those scripts are hard to write, and basically useless until they’re complete.
Often the only practical way to do this stuff is incremental refinement, where each small step adds a little bit of value.
The trick is figuring out where to begin. I think the suggestion in this post is a wonderful way to get over that first hurdle.
Re: Do-nothing scripting: the key to gradual automation
#19This just seems like checklists with extra steps.
Re: Do-nothing scripting: the key to gradual automation
#20Combined with the concept of literate programming this would also help capture the "why"s of the slog, resulting in inline documentation. Jupyter and org-mode for the win!