2026-02-16 19:03 UTC
@crazyeddie@mastodon.social @GossiTheDog@cyberplace.social
Sigh. Yes, that makes perfect sense.
I remember reading commentary back in the 1980s to the effect that automating a (business) process doesn't make it BETTER, it just makes its existing failure modes happen FASTER, often with the result that the humans who were able to cope with those failures when they came at a human rate are now overwhelmed by them occurring at the speed of computer processing.
It was true then for paper-based accounting, and it's true now for collaborative software projects.
Replies (1)
-
@mike805@noc.social 2026-02-16 20:28
@n1xnx @crazyeddie @GossiTheDog That was a classic problem with "computerize this workflow." The consultants would go in and document the formal process. Then they would draw their flowcharts and data flow diagrams, and the coders would replicate the formal process in code. But with the paper process, you could write notes in the margins of the form, and the code didn't capture that. You could line out wrong entries, but the program didn't capture that. So the code wasn't usable, and you 1/3