Legal operations: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 76: Line 76:
Now the thing about costs and waste is that they are not some kind of astral yin and yang, orbiting each other in a sort of stable zero-sum relationship. Some costs are worth it; some are not. Some costs are obvious; some are hard to see.  
Now the thing about costs and waste is that they are not some kind of astral yin and yang, orbiting each other in a sort of stable zero-sum relationship. Some costs are worth it; some are not. Some costs are obvious; some are hard to see.  


The easiest costs to see are ''salaries''. Salaries are big, lumpy and easily stopped: you simply dispense with those to whom you are paying them. This has passed for sport amongst finance executives for many years.
The easiest costs to see are ''salaries''. Salaries are big, lumpy and easily stopped: you simply [[Redundancies|dispense with those to whom you are paying them]]. This has passed for sport amongst finance executives for many years.


But “stupid questions” and “bad ideas” ''are also costs''. Smaller costs, to be sure, but more numerous, much harder for the executive suite to see, and ''really'' hard for them to stop. They don’t stop being costs just because the executive team can’t see them.
But “stupid questions” and “bad ideas”, ''[[Process|prolix procedures]]'' and ''incomprehensible documents'' are '''also''' costs. Smaller costs, to be sure, but more numerous, much harder for the executive suite to see, and ''really'' hard for them to stop. They don’t stop being costs just because the executive team can’t see them.


And here is the converse to the observation above:  
And here is the converse to the observation above: '''{{maxim|very smalls sum of money, if you add enough of them up, amount to a very large sum of money}}.'''


* ''Thirdly'', very smalls sum of money, if you add enough of them up, amount to a very large sum of money.
The funny thing is that the management team ''can'' see that very large sum of money, even though they can’t see any of the small ones.


The funny thing is that the management team can see that very large sum of money, even though they can’t see any of the small ones.
Silly questions distracts not just those who ask them, but those to whom they are addressed: all who are hindered from doing more productive things. Hare-brained notions skitter around the skirting-boards of all organisations, out of sight, unchecked, by their nature creating ''more'' stupid questions, more bad ideas, triggering little chain reactions of stupidity and waste. If not answered quickly and clearly, these chains sometimes harden into policies, procedures, work-streams, teams and even [[Human resources|whole departments]].  


Silly questions distracts not just those who ask them, but those to whom they are addressed: all who are hindered from doing more productive things. Hare-brained notions skitter around the skirting-boards of all organisations, out of sight, unchecked, by their nature creating ''more'' stupid questions and bad ideas, starting off little chain reactions of stupidity and waste. If not answered quickly and clearly, these chains sometimes ossify into policies, procedures, work-streams, teams and even [[Human resources|whole departments]].
Eventually, this institutionalised, low-level vacuity creates its own invisible tide of cretinaiety, sloshing around the organisation, delaying things, pulling useful people into its undertow, spawning its own little waves of dreck and powering armies of little administrators chasing these fripperies down and, as they go, building out yet more complicated operational infrastructure. For all the outsourcing, offshoring and down-sizing of the last 20 years, UK financial services employment has remained largely stable.<ref>Over 21 years, and including all the branch closures, in that time, it is [https://www.statista.com/statistics/298370/uk-financial-sector-total-financial-services-employment/ down just 7.5%] </ref>  
 
Eventually, this institutionalised, low-level vacuity creates its own invisible tide of cretinaiety, sloshing around the organisation, delaying things, pulling useful people in to its undertow, spawning its own little waves of dreck and chasing armies of little administrators chasing them down and, as they go building out yet more operational infrastructure. For all the outsourcing, offshoring and down-sizing of the last 20 years, UK financial services employment has remained largely stable.<ref>Over 21 years, and including all the branch closures, in that time, it is [https://www.statista.com/statistics/298370/uk-financial-sector-total-financial-services-employment/ down just 7.5%] </ref>  


But when the costs are so big, it is really hard not to obsess about them, in the round, as a thing in themselves. Especially if you are an accountant, and you don’t understand the product or the manufacturing process anyway. “I ''know'',” the benighted business analyst will complain, “that cost isn’t important. But the CFO wants to see a five percent reduction. Every year.”
But when the costs are so big, it is really hard not to obsess about them, in the round, as a thing in themselves. Especially if you are an accountant, and you don’t understand the product or the manufacturing process anyway. “I ''know'',” the benighted business analyst will complain, “that cost isn’t important. But the CFO wants to see a five percent reduction. Every year.”
Retrieved from "https://jollycontrarian.com/index.php?title=Legal_operations"