Four-eye check: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
An accident waiting to happen. | {{a|work|}}An accident waiting to happen. | ||
You have a process that is so mind-numbingly [https://jollycontrarian.com/index.php%3Ftitle=Dreary dreary] — [https://jollycontrarian.com/index.php%3Ftitle=Citigroup_v_Brigade_Capital_Management sequencing interest payments on billion dollar revolving credit facilities], for example — that the posse of [https://jollycontrarian.com/index.php%3Ftitle=School-leaver_from_Bucharest Bratislavan school-leavers] you have engaged for the purpose cannot be depended on to carry it out without occasionally ticking the wrong box, whacking the wrong mole, or wiring an eight-figure principal repayment to the wrong distressed creditor. | You have a process that is so mind-numbingly [https://jollycontrarian.com/index.php%3Ftitle=Dreary dreary] — [https://jollycontrarian.com/index.php%3Ftitle=Citigroup_v_Brigade_Capital_Management sequencing interest payments on billion dollar revolving credit facilities], for example — that the posse of [https://jollycontrarian.com/index.php%3Ftitle=School-leaver_from_Bucharest Bratislavan school-leavers] you have engaged for the purpose cannot be depended on to carry it out without occasionally ticking the wrong box, whacking the wrong mole, or wiring an eight-figure principal repayment to the wrong distressed creditor. |
Revision as of 16:09, 5 May 2022
Office anthropology™
|
An accident waiting to happen.
You have a process that is so mind-numbingly dreary — sequencing interest payments on billion dollar revolving credit facilities, for example — that the posse of Bratislavan school-leavers you have engaged for the purpose cannot be depended on to carry it out without occasionally ticking the wrong box, whacking the wrong mole, or wiring an eight-figure principal repayment to the wrong distressed creditor.
What to do? Easy: engage another squad of Balkan undergraduates for the even more soul-gouging chore of checking the output of the first lot.
Because that will definitely work, right?[1]
The JC has moaned elsewhere about our modernist confusion over the fundamental division of labour between the meatware and the machines. If you want a job being done quickly, cheaply and reliably, and it’s important, get a machine to do it. If it is worth investing in not just one low-paid call centre worker to carry out the task, but two, it is certainly worth investing in a machine that can do the work without checking it.
Easy | Hard | |
Frequent | Machine. Humans will take too long, cost too much and screw it up. | Redesign process. Either separate “easy and frequent” from “hard and rare”, hire lots of subject matter experts or don’t do the business. |
Rare | Human. Not worth programming a computer. | Human. No point programming a computer. |
- ↑ It won’t.