82,891
edits
This is an auto-generated email: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
If we take it as a given that the optimal outcome to a newly-implemented process is 100% compliance without hesitation, repetition or deviation, let alone (God forbid!) ''complaint'', then it is no more than sensible product [[design]] to ensure your loud-hailer can go ''everywhere'' yet come from ''nowhere'' and, once supplicants have clocked its clangorous tone — in the comprehensively auditable ecosystem of a Microsoft Exchange server, they can hardly miss it, even if they ''do'' actually, you know, miss it — they have no choice but to bend their weary footsteps to its urgings, however preposterous the outcome of that action might be. | If we take it as a given that the optimal outcome to a newly-implemented process is 100% compliance without hesitation, repetition or deviation, let alone (God forbid!) ''complaint'', then it is no more than sensible product [[design]] to ensure your loud-hailer can go ''everywhere'' yet come from ''nowhere'' and, once supplicants have clocked its clangorous tone — in the comprehensively auditable ecosystem of a Microsoft Exchange server, they can hardly miss it, even if they ''do'' actually, you know, miss it — they have no choice but to bend their weary footsteps to its urgings, however preposterous the outcome of that action might be. | ||
But years of miserable life-experience tells us not take that as a given. Even well-designed processes rust over time — and those that envision the [[meatware]] playing “[[Simon Says]]” with an automated compliance system are ''not'' well-designed, let us be clear — and those responsible for them need the occasional prompt to get out the [https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2ofy6l wire brush and Dettol] to ensure the whole thing remains fit for purpose. | |||
This prompt usually comes from those obliged to ''follow'' the process ''complaining'' about it. Interests are, theoretically aligned: the [[meatware]] resents having its time wasted; [[middle manager]]s don’t enjoy being whined at, so the [[Systemantics: The Systems Bible|feedback loop]] balances itself into a kind of vaguely [[tiresome]] equilibrium. Every now and then middle management will overhaul the process to make it less of a pain — for everyone. | |||
The unmonitored, auto-generated email breaks that feedback loop. Now the [[user]] doesn’t know who sent the email, who owns the system, or whom to whine at. She may try to work it out, perhaps by searching [[Quantum indeterminacy|fruitlessly]] on the [[intranet]]<ref>It is a truth universally acknowledged that no intranet contains any information that is both up-to-date and useful.</ref> but the wave of ire will eventually crest, subside and she will go back to her other tediae, the matter unresolved. The responsible middle manager — if there is one, and we cannot now even be certain of that: for all we know, the system may be generating its own Kafkaesque processes — remains blissfully unaware of the wastefulness of her process. Indeed, unshackled from the responsibility of keeping this one serviceably un-stupid, she is free to create ''more'' wasteful processes, watched over by more unmonitored accounts, and can report a full slate of green indicators on her [[RAG]] [[dashboard]] at the monthly [[opco]] [[stakeholder]] check-in. | |||
Even less edifying is the auto-generated email that does not just ''warn'' you about something, or ''chide'' you for something, but ''[[You’ve been assigned a task!|actively gives you work to do]]''. | Even less edifying is the auto-generated email that does not just ''warn'' you about something, or ''chide'' you for something, but ''[[You’ve been assigned a task!|actively gives you work to do]]''. | ||