82,891
edits
It’s not about the bike: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) m (Amwelladmin moved page It’s not about the chatbot to It’s not about the bike) |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
Look, exercise is important, but it is something one should do alone, anonymously, under cover of darkness if possible, and in disguise if not. | 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 when the question arises ''how should one improve athletic performance'' the [[JC]] is, well — the sixth-last person in the world you should ask. But he has a fondness for metaphors<ref>And pies.</ref> and he spies a good’un here. For the same principles that would apply to elite performance apply to process optimisation | So when the question arises ''how should one improve athletic performance'' the [[JC]] is, well — the sixth-last person in the world you should ask. But he has a fondness for metaphors<ref>And pies.</ref> and he spies a good’un here. For the same principles that would apply to elite performance, were he to care a fig for it, assuredly apply to any other kind of process optimisation, and he cares quite a few figs about that. | ||
All the same it is galling to co-opt Lance Armstrong’s words, of all people’s, but here goes, with a JC twist: | |||
{{Quote|''It’s not about the bike. It’s about the '''pies'''.''}} | {{Quote|''It’s not about the bike. It’s about the '''pies'''.''}} | ||
If you want to go drop some weight and go faster, there are two ways to do it: drop twenty grand on upgrading to kevlar forks, graphene spokes and go-faster stripes — or you could ''lay off the pies''. | |||
Now what has this got to do with legal [[design]]? Well, if your legal process is anything like the JC, it will be an opinionated windbag who complains a lot, does no-one any good and can’t run for toffee. Am I right? If it is already Usain Bolt, what exactly are you doing fiddling with it? | |||
Right; if so then throwing voguish tech at it would be like the [[JC]] splashing out on day-glo spandex and a fifty grand bike instead of a pair of sneakers. | |||
Time for another down-home JC-branded [[Latin]] [[maxim]], readers: ''[[primum comede minus]]'': “[[First, cut out the pies]].” You will lose ten kilos and ''save'' money — on pies, right? — ''and your current gear will work a lot better''. | |||
===Dieting sucks but getting new kit is fun=== | |||
Let’s not forget our old friend the [[agency paradox]], and the selfish motivations it imbues in those who occupy the sedimentary layer above your head. | |||
Innovating is where it is at. And the CEO has told all his directs they ''have'' to innovate. This is your [[GC]] we’re talking about. For {{sex|him}}, ''Tippex{{tm}}'' still counts as a kind of outré, remember. And there’s probably a five-year plan — and it’s probably even officially ''called'' a “five-year plan” — to convert a third of the workforce into gig-working [[School-leaver from Bucharest|Bratislavan school-leavers]] by 2026. So management is screaming to ''do'' something — ''anything'' — but there’s no money to do anything except, by a stroke of otherworldly provenance, there ''is'' a ring-fenced, bottomless fund for projects that can be badged as braggable [[innovation]]. Before you can say “[[blockchain]]” the [[GC]] will be all over it. To hell with the business case, ''make it happen''. | |||
Secondly, putting legal contracts on a cabbage-and-water diet is ''hard''. Your precedents, if you have any, will be all over the shop and shot through with contradictions, outrages and gnomic textual formulations that no-one understands, no-one can recall the provenance of, but everyone is fearful of removing. Gutting processes, stripping out indemnities, doing without [[NAV trigger]]s takes a courage others will regard as cavalier, and a preparedness to tell other control functions they are swinging the lead. That is a fight that most people in a hierarchy know better than to enlist for. | |||
===If you can automate it, it can’t be important=== | |||
Anything you automate is, necessarily, low value: because you ''make it'' low value ''by automating it''. | |||
Automating might give you a short-term productivity bump, but you’ll rapidly bank it and, anyway, if ''you'' can automate a process, 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''. | Automating might give you a short-term productivity bump, but you’ll rapidly bank it and, anyway, if ''you'' can automate a process, 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''. | ||
| Line 36: | Line 49: | ||
*[[Seven wastes of negotiation]] | *[[Seven wastes of negotiation]] | ||
{{ref}} | {{ref}} | ||
<references /> | |||