It’s not about the bike: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
{{A|design|[[File:Change It.png|450px|thumb|center|It’s not about the axe, the hat, the shirt or the face.]]
{{A|design|[[File:pie.jpeg|450px|thumb|center|The actual problem, yesterday.]]
}}Having been thoroughly traumatised by compulsory inter-house cross-countries in his youth — best ever placing: sixth-last — the [[JC]] has always loathed races of any kind, resented those who are good at them, and revelled at any schadenfreude going should the foot-race winners of the world come a-cropper. Look, exercise is important, but it is something one should do alone, anonymously, under cover of darkness if possible, and in disguise if not.  
}}Having been traumatised by compulsory inter-house cross-countries in his youth — best ever placing: sixth-last — the [[JC]] has always ''loathed'' races of any kind, resented those who are good at them, and revelled at any ''schadenfreude'' going should the foot-race winners of the world come a-cropper. Look, exercise is important, but it is something one should do alone, anonymously, under cover of darkness if possible, and in disguise if not. So it is somewhat galling to be repeating Lance Armstrong’s words, but here goes:
 
So it is somewhat galling to be repeating Lance Armstrong’s words, but here goes:


{{Quote|''It’s not about the bike.''}}
{{Quote|''It’s not about the bike.''}}


You could lose another three hundred grams from your loaded frame weight with kevlar forks and graphene spokes, at a cost of a few grand, or ''stop eating so many pies''.  
There are two ways to lose three hundred grams from your loaded frame weight: upgrade to kevlar forks and graphene spokes, at a cost of a few grand, or ''cut out all the pies''.  
 
You hear a similar thing in music forums across the land: “I’ve got the guitar, I’ve got the amp, the right gauge strings, the same pick, the same stompboxes — even the same ''hat'' but ''still'' I can’t get the Stevie Ray Vaughan sound. What’s the [[secret sauce]]?” Young hotdogs are chastened to hear — it doesn’t stop them, though — that the special factor in Stevie Ray Vaughan’s rig is ''Stevie Ray Vaughan''.
 
{{Quote|''It’s not about the axe. Or the hat.''}}


So what has this got to do with legal design?
So what has this got to do with legal design? Well, automating your existing docs process is like upgrading to kevlar forks without getting in shape. ''First, cut out the pies.'' You could lose ten kilos and ''save'' some money, and you’ll get better value out of your existing bike. You might conclude that kevlar forks are a bit of a waste of money. Anything you can automate is, necessarily, low value: because you ''make it'' low value by the act of automating it. Neither your business, nor the client, will attach ongoing value to something you have automated, because it is done. It is out of the way.


Well, automating your existing docs process is like upgrading to kevlar forks. ''First, cut out the pies.'' You could lose ten kilos and ''save'' some money, and you’ll get better value out of your existing forks. You might conclude that kevlar forks are a bit of a waste of money.
It might give you a short term productivity bump, but you’ll rapidly bank it and, anyway, if ''you'' can automate it, so can anyone else. And then there are the downstream costs. Not just the [[Rent-seeking|rent extracted]] by the software vendor, the internal bureaucratic overhead in maintaining, auditing, approving and renewing the software, training legal users, updating the content — the knock on pain of solving a problem which wasn’t, actually, that you needed Kevlar forks, but that ''you needed to go on a diet and get in shape''.

Revision as of 19:28, 23 March 2021

The design of organisations and products
File:Pie.jpeg
The actual problem, yesterday.


Making legal contracts a better experience
Index — Click ᐅ to expand:
Design

Comments? Questions? Suggestions? Requests? Insults? We’d love to 📧 hear from you.
Sign up for our newsletter.

Having been traumatised by compulsory inter-house cross-countries in his youth — best ever placing: sixth-last — the JC has always loathed races of any kind, resented those who are good at them, and revelled at any schadenfreude going should the foot-race winners of the world come a-cropper. Look, exercise is important, but it is something one should do alone, anonymously, under cover of darkness if possible, and in disguise if not. So it is somewhat galling to be repeating Lance Armstrong’s words, but here goes:

It’s not about the bike.

There are two ways to lose three hundred grams from your loaded frame weight: upgrade to kevlar forks and graphene spokes, at a cost of a few grand, or cut out all the pies.

So what has this got to do with legal design? Well, automating your existing docs process is like upgrading to kevlar forks without getting in shape. First, cut out the pies. You could lose ten kilos and save some money, and you’ll get better value out of your existing bike. You might conclude that kevlar forks are a bit of a waste of money. Anything you can automate is, necessarily, low value: because you make it low value by the act of automating it. Neither your business, nor the client, will attach ongoing value to something you have automated, because it is done. It is out of the way.

It might give you a short term productivity bump, but you’ll rapidly bank it and, anyway, if you can automate it, so can anyone else. And then there are the downstream costs. Not just the rent extracted by the software vendor, the internal bureaucratic overhead in maintaining, auditing, approving and renewing the software, training legal users, updating the content — the knock on pain of solving a problem which wasn’t, actually, that you needed Kevlar forks, but that you needed to go on a diet and get in shape.

Retrieved from "https://jollycontrarian.com/index.php?title=It’s_not_about_the_bike&oldid=55402"