= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Morendil comments on Community roles: committees and leadership - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (14)
methodologies are a different kettle of fish to something like the rules of running a McD's.
The former tries to create rules around an essentially creative process. The latter covers something that really is not creative. Big Macs and clean floors are made the same way the world around - so a set of rules can in fact cover just about every likely eventuality in a regular McD's store.
Not so methodologies which attempt to place a "do it the same every time" framework (learned from such systems as franchise burger joints) to a process that, by it's nature must be different every time - and also involve creative scope that a set of rigid rules just can't handle.
My point? Methodologies really can't be written "like software" (at least not yet), but franchise-operating rules can.
I'm still struggling to explain why this is (to people who ask) without devolving into a "different magisteria" kind of explanation. :P
Yes to the above, for the most part.
The irony is that "good sets of rules resemble programs" is an intuition which may appeal most to people with limited understanding and experience of what it takes to create a useful and robust program.
In particular, I strongly doubt that there will be anything McDonalds'-like about a successful effort to raise the rationality waterline.
The further irony: we know that there is a set of rules for McDonald's which has program-like precision. However, we do not have much evidence that this program is followed with computer-like compliance; and in fact whenever I actually enter a McDonald's restaurant (which I grant is very seldom, but still) I find blatant evidence of non-compliance: dirty floors, french fries cold and slumped because they've sat too long before being served, burgers in similar condition...
More generally the existence of "work to rule" strikes suggests that, even when workers in a given context are popularly conceived to follow program-like rules with computer-like obedience, this is rarely in fact the case and these rules only appear to be effective precisely because workers in fact exert some significant degree of autonomy and judgement in carrying out those rules.
TL;DR: the more you know about either programming or McDonalds, the less grounds you have to think that "good sets of rules resemble programs".
Yes I agree. Changing people's thinking falls into the "creative process" box for me.
Good point. I guess the rules are "more like guidelines" - but when they're followed well they lead to a much higher chance of a successful McD's franchise... (though it'd be interesting to see if that pans out in a study).