82,927
edits
Service catalog: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
But software is dumb. It follows rules. It can only do what it was bought to do. To augment or change the application to which your software is dedicated, to meet a new challenge or opportunity - that requires judgment. An executive decision. Only a person can make an executive decision.<ref>[[AI]] freaks who beg to differ : [mailto:enquiries@jollycontrarian.com mail me] if you want an argument. I'm game. </ref> | But software is dumb. It follows rules. It can only do what it was bought to do. To augment or change the application to which your software is dedicated, to meet a new challenge or opportunity - that requires judgment. An executive decision. Only a person can make an executive decision.<ref>[[AI]] freaks who beg to differ : [mailto:enquiries@jollycontrarian.com mail me] if you want an argument. I'm game. </ref> | ||
Though at times it might not seem like it, your human [[employee]]s are ''not'' dumb animals | Though at times it might not seem like it, your human [[employee]]s are ''not'' dumb animals however much tethering them to a service catalog might make them feel like it. But you have employees precisely ''because'' they can make judgements, and take executive decisions, ''and do imaginative stuff you weren't expecting them to when a tricky situation calls for it''. '''Software cannot do this. Not even Deep Mind'''. | ||
This is the profound difference between humans and machines. In the [[hive mind]]'s evangelical fervor for AI, this distinction has been lost. We overlook it at our peril. Humans catch the bits that the service catalog didn't anticipate. | This is the profound difference between humans and machines. In the [[hive mind]]'s evangelical fervor for [[AI]], this distinction has been lost. We overlook it at our peril. | ||
Humans catch the bits that the [[service catalog]] didn't anticipate. | |||
===[[Lawyer]]s. A special case. === | ===[[Lawyer]]s. A special case. === | ||
If there is one bunch of employees who are uniquely unsuitable for a [[service catalog]] it those, like the [[legal eagles]], whose job is to sort out edge cases. The common belief that the [[legal department]] exists to own and answer all legal issues is a canard. Each business owns its own legal issues. It is expected to | If there is one bunch of employees who are uniquely unsuitable for a [[service catalog]] it those, like the [[legal eagles]], whose job is to sort out edge cases. The common belief that the [[legal department]] exists to own and answer all legal issues is a canard. Each business owns its own legal issues. It is expected to understand and answer, without help, all legal questions that arise in the course of its ordinary daily operations. | ||
The [[legal department]] is there to advise should the [[playbook]] run out of road; should new or unusual issues arise. Legal comes in when an exception is thrown. It is an [[escalation]]. Inside the [[normal science]] of the [[paradigm]], you should not espy your young attorneys abeam the tilled and and tended fields of existing practice: they should keep away. Those the business people and operations staff must understand themselves. These risks one can catalog easily enough, but they are not owned by [[legal]]. | |||
That is, the [[legal department]] is there to answer the questions the organisation ''was not expecting to to be asked''. By definition, they will not cleave to [[carving nature at its joints|joints at which your risk taxonomy has purported to carve nature]]. | |||
[[Legal]] owns the legal risks you ''can’t'' catalog in advance. | [[Legal]] owns the legal risks you ''can’t'' catalog in advance. | ||