Iteration: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
| (7 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a| | {{a|design|{{image|Fifth Score|jpg|An extract from Beethoven’s score for the Fifth Symphony in C Minor. Did he get it right first time? He did not.}}}}{{dpn|iteration|/ˌɪtəˈreɪʃn/|n|}} | ||
Incremental modification to a process, product or theory as a means of refining it, improving it, and recalibrating its fitness and suitability to a changing environment. | |||
A key, and much underestimated, quality in our crazy sugar-coated world. Where you are confronted with imperfect, incomplete or conflicting information, variables that are beyond your control (children, animals, opposing [[ISDA negotiator]]s), [[unknown unknowns]] — in short, [[complex system]]s — then your decision making process should be [[iterative]]. | |||
That is, you ''[[iterate]]''. The decision process is not static, it is not preordained — it is an ongoing dynamic process. | To [[iterate]] is to hypothesise; to guesstimate, to test; to tweak; to rerun. To accept that, since there is imperfect, incomplete information, ''any'' decision and any design choice is to some extent uniformed, but since, when a programme is malfunctioning, ''some'' remedial action, is likely to be better than none, your best bet is ''provisionally'' to take as informed a decision as you can, based on what you do know, for now, but be ready to re-test that idea and change your action as the situation, and the information you have to hand about it, changes. | ||
That is, you should ''[[iterate]]''. The decision process is not static, it is not preordained — it is an ongoing dynamic process. | |||
This principle applies whether you are solving new problems, dealing with an unexpected crisis, or building out your system — the [[end-to-end principle]] allows maximum [[iteration]]. Don’t be wedded to the way you’ve been doing things — I know, I know my little eaglets, it is so hard to let go of the comfort blanket of [[precedent]], but you must — try, and expect things to fail. Don’t commit. Scrub them out and try again. | This principle applies whether you are solving new problems, dealing with an unexpected crisis, or building out your system — the [[end-to-end principle]] allows maximum [[iteration]]. Don’t be wedded to the way you’ve been doing things — I know, I know my little eaglets, it is so hard to let go of the comfort blanket of [[precedent]], but you must — try, and expect things to fail. Don’t commit. Scrub them out and try again. | ||
===Iteration requires skill=== | |||
Even without someone actively trying to stop you, successful [[iteration]] is ''hard''. The more you practice, the more you understand the systems and subsystems of your environment, the better you will be. [[Subject matter expert|Expertise]], skill and experience ''matter''. | |||
Our old friends the itinerant [[school-leavers from Bucharest]] might be cheap and [[fungible]], but they won’t, off the bat, have the expertise needed to effectively iterate. She will only get that expertise by [[iterating]]. When she does get that experience she will pack up and relocate to London, so it remains true that school-leavers from Bucharest, whilst in situ, will not be the droids you are looking for. They will come and find you when they are ready. | |||
Not all iterations ''work''. The thing about [[tail event]]s is they’re hard to predict. On the other hand, an [[iterative]] process will almost certainly be more effective than a [[chatbot]] at dealing with a novel conundrum. And trying something that doesn’t work still yields you information: it is a [[falsification]]: now know what ''isn’t'' the answer. | |||
===The forces of inertia are against you=== | |||
You have to work at iteration, and fight those who would bid you stop. That you continue to iterate is to acknowledge you have a work in progress. This can be annoying, especially to people who don’t like to admit things are a work in progress. | |||
But everything that is not dead is a work in progress. | |||
There will be strong impulse ''against'' iteration from people in the organisation: | |||
*Those [[sales|fearful of upsetting client]]s, especially on repeat business, or once a termsheet has gone out: “for god’s sake don’t ''change'' anything!”; | |||
*Those — and they tend to be more senior people — who know what they know and like things how they are (this being the way things were that got them where they are); | |||
*Those who believe in reasoning from settled principles. Lawyers tend to be[[stare decisis|like that]]. The common law is ''predicated'' on being like that. | |||
“If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” is the anti-iteratist’s stance. | |||
===Other articulations=== | ===Other articulations=== | ||
*Think of the world in terms of [[System analysis|systems]], not units — {{author|Donella H. Meadows}} | *Think of the world in terms of [[System analysis|systems]], not units — {{author|Donella H. Meadows}} | ||
*[[Prisoner’s dilemma]] — the payoffs are totally different if you play an indefinite-round game of prisoner’s dilemma (hence the so-called “[[iterated prisoner’s dilemma]] | *[[Prisoner’s dilemma]] — the payoffs are totally different if you play an indefinite-round game of prisoner’s dilemma (hence the so-called “[[iterated prisoner’s dilemma]]”). But note the impact of [[convexity]], that can turn an iterated game into a single round. | ||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||
*[[End-to-end principle]] | *[[End-to-end principle]] | ||
*[[Doubt]] | *[[Doubt]] | ||
Latest revision as of 13:57, 24 January 2023
|
The design of organisations and products
|
Iteration
iteration (/ˌɪtəˈreɪʃn/.)
Incremental modification to a process, product or theory as a means of refining it, improving it, and recalibrating its fitness and suitability to a changing environment.
A key, and much underestimated, quality in our crazy sugar-coated world. Where you are confronted with imperfect, incomplete or conflicting information, variables that are beyond your control (children, animals, opposing ISDA negotiators), unknown unknowns — in short, complex systems — then your decision making process should be iterative.
To iterate is to hypothesise; to guesstimate, to test; to tweak; to rerun. To accept that, since there is imperfect, incomplete information, any decision and any design choice is to some extent uniformed, but since, when a programme is malfunctioning, some remedial action, is likely to be better than none, your best bet is provisionally to take as informed a decision as you can, based on what you do know, for now, but be ready to re-test that idea and change your action as the situation, and the information you have to hand about it, changes.
That is, you should iterate. The decision process is not static, it is not preordained — it is an ongoing dynamic process.
This principle applies whether you are solving new problems, dealing with an unexpected crisis, or building out your system — the end-to-end principle allows maximum iteration. Don’t be wedded to the way you’ve been doing things — I know, I know my little eaglets, it is so hard to let go of the comfort blanket of precedent, but you must — try, and expect things to fail. Don’t commit. Scrub them out and try again.
Iteration requires skill
Even without someone actively trying to stop you, successful iteration is hard. The more you practice, the more you understand the systems and subsystems of your environment, the better you will be. Expertise, skill and experience matter.
Our old friends the itinerant school-leavers from Bucharest might be cheap and fungible, but they won’t, off the bat, have the expertise needed to effectively iterate. She will only get that expertise by iterating. When she does get that experience she will pack up and relocate to London, so it remains true that school-leavers from Bucharest, whilst in situ, will not be the droids you are looking for. They will come and find you when they are ready.
Not all iterations work. The thing about tail events is they’re hard to predict. On the other hand, an iterative process will almost certainly be more effective than a chatbot at dealing with a novel conundrum. And trying something that doesn’t work still yields you information: it is a falsification: now know what isn’t the answer.
The forces of inertia are against you
You have to work at iteration, and fight those who would bid you stop. That you continue to iterate is to acknowledge you have a work in progress. This can be annoying, especially to people who don’t like to admit things are a work in progress.
But everything that is not dead is a work in progress.
There will be strong impulse against iteration from people in the organisation:
- Those fearful of upsetting clients, especially on repeat business, or once a termsheet has gone out: “for god’s sake don’t change anything!”;
- Those — and they tend to be more senior people — who know what they know and like things how they are (this being the way things were that got them where they are);
- Those who believe in reasoning from settled principles. Lawyers tend to belike that. The common law is predicated on being like that.
“If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” is the anti-iteratist’s stance.
Other articulations
- Think of the world in terms of systems, not units — Donella H. Meadows
- Prisoner’s dilemma — the payoffs are totally different if you play an indefinite-round game of prisoner’s dilemma (hence the so-called “iterated prisoner’s dilemma”). But note the impact of convexity, that can turn an iterated game into a single round.