1/ "Lean" is rarely about efficiency. It is usu code for cost cutting by increasing invisible risk without lowering visible functionality
Conversation
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
5
Replying to
3/ Example 1: UK floods and flood-related spending cuts. Example 2: SoCal gas leak: laweekly.com/news/what-went
1
1
3
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
3
8
Replying to
5/ The result is that the responsibility for cost reduction is passed to relevant technical experts under enormous political pressure
1
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
1
6
Replying to
7/ Chief among these are safety and insurance functions in engineering design and operations. The "what-if" infrastructure.
1
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
9/ Exhibit A is of course the TSA security theater. I am sure we're safer since 9/11, but almost all safety increase is in invisible places.
1
3
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
5
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"
Replying to
12/ Of that 90%, almost all will happen in parts of ops that will affect the vulnerable more. Not today, but at some unknown future date
1
2
4
Replying to
13/ Complex infrastructure inherently involves moral hazard because of this: experts manage risk distributions via cost cuts over time
1
2
8
Show replies
