82,451
edits
Iteration: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
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]] | ||