82,891
edits
Template:Over-processing: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==={{wasteprov|Over-processing}}=== | ==={{wasteprov|Over-processing}}=== | ||
'''Headline''': ''Don't design your | '''Headline''': ''Don't design your plane to be waterproof in case it falls into the sea. Design it so it doesn’t crash.'' | ||
Contractual risk protection standards, for both parties, are stuffed with redundancies, anachronisms, over-reaches and nice-to-haves. Each one is liable to challenge. Each challenge brings its own process wastes. | Contractual risk protection standards, for both parties, are stuffed with redundancies, anachronisms, over-reaches and nice-to-haves. Each one is liable to challenge. Each challenge brings its own process wastes. They arise in two chief ways: | ||
[[Risk controller]]s are short an option. They are incentivised to err on the side of caution | ===={{riskprov|Risk controller}}s are short an option==== | ||
[[Risk controller]]s are short an option. They are incentivised to err on the side of caution: they don't get a bonus if the client generates extra revenue, but they will be regarded as having failed if the client blows up owing the firm money<ref>In theory. But see the [[circle of escalation]].</ref>. So no wonder there are overreaches in the terms they require in general client documentation. | |||
====[[Barnacles]] and the effluxion of time==== | |||
''“[[Rework - Book Review|Policy is institutional scar tissue]]”'' - [[Jason Fried]]<br> | |||
Over time contract templates will inevitably accumulate what I call "[[barnacle|barnacles]]" — ''ad hoc'' responses to historic situations, reactions to unexpected risks, flourishes to cater for a particularly truculent counterparty. As people move on the reason for these adaptations is lost to time, and the instinct of successive lawyers (being cautious people, and short an option) when asked to consider these provisions will be, “I don't know why it is there, but someone must have put it in for some reason, so the safest thing is to leave it there.” | |||
In its original physical manufacturing sense, {{wasteprov|over-processing}} refers to unnecessary complexity in design, whether brought about through careless design or over-specification. The production cost of features that neither you nor your client are realistically ever going to use is as much a form of wastage as any. | In its original physical manufacturing sense, {{wasteprov|over-processing}} refers to unnecessary complexity in design, whether brought about through careless design or over-specification. The production cost of features that neither you nor your client are realistically ever going to use is as much a form of wastage as any. | ||