Conversation

1/ "Lean" is rarely about efficiency. It is usu code for cost cutting by increasing invisible risk without lowering visible functionality
4
23
Replying to
2/ So you get the *appearance* of efficiency: the same value for "less" because you've made cuts in invisible/rarely visible functions
1
5
Replying to
4/ When people who do not understand technology fight over costs, they fight over visible functions and usually end up in a stalemate
1
8
Replying to
5/ The result is that the responsibility for cost reduction is passed to relevant technical experts under enormous political pressure
1
7
Replying to
6/ So not surprising that the technical experts react by cutting things that are not in the spotlight of politicized debate over functions
1
6
Replying to
7/ Chief among these are safety and insurance functions in engineering design and operations. The "what-if" infrastructure.
1
7
Replying to
8/ Non-technologists sometimes *think* they are covering safety/insurance aspects, but they are usually involved in safety/insurance theater
1
6
Replying to
10/ Not only does "lean" translate to "increase risk", incentives are stacked to increase risk for people who have least ability to complain
2
11
Replying to
11/ In general, if there is a need to cut costs by X, 10% will come from function degradation, 90% from increasing risk via "leaning"
1
7
Show replies