Conversation

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
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
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
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
4
Replying to
14/ In this, impacted parties are not blameless. They usually knowingly overallocate resources to function X over insurance of function X
1
2
Replying to
15/ How do you tell real efficiency increases from fragility-for-cost tradeoffs? Follow the information. Real thing embodies new knowledge
1
4
Show replies