If process and procedure is followed correctly, then the results will be correct. It works for computers; there is no reason why it shouldn't work for humans, who are just biological computers.
Not true. First of all, it doesn't work for computers. Every time you see a computer crash? That's not random behavior, that's the computer doing what it was told and the process being wrong. I work in IT, I see this type of stuff all the time. The single biggest problem with computers is that they do what we tell them instead of what we want them to do. (Computers don't speak "human.")
The other problem is that process is built for normal situations. It doesn't handle abnormal situations. If you follow the process anyway, you get nonsense for a result. The advantage to a human over a computer is that they can use their brain and sanity-check what the process gives them.
When nobody does that, we get absurd situations like a shoplifter with 48 convictions being recruited by a prosecutor to go after a merchant who performed a citizens arrest. The "process" was followed just fine, and the result was so outrageous that it embarrassed the entire government.
Then why not put in a request to update the process to further accommodate your requirements, using the approved Process Amendment Procedure? It's what I do.
Because I was a coop student on a work term, and didn't have the six years it'd take to push that through every level of management to get it changed (especially since purchasing is driven by legislation, which means it needs to go even higher).
Now I could do that, but it doesn't help you when you need the situation resolved today and can't get a meeting assembled of the necessary managers until 2011.
Bad idea. Politicians don't want to solve things. They want to get re-elected. They'll suck the cock of whoever will give them votes. This means they have no interest in solving a problem; they'll exacerbate it as much as they can because it will give them votes. Thank God most judges and bureaucracies are immune from the tyranny of the mob.
TSA could use a little tyranny of the mob right now. Politicians are there to hold the leash, and occasionally to yank it back. That's one of their most important functions.
As for people... yeah I do find they generally make the right decision if given the chance. Who knows more about the situation? The inspector who just went out to look at it, the manager two layers removed from the inspector who has never been in the field, or the policy wonk in another branch who knows nothing about the work at all but gets to write procedures governing it?
It's pretty clear to me where I want the decision making power to rest, and it's not with the policy wonk.
Credits & Style Info
Talk Politics. A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 17/11/10 16:18 (UTC)Not true. First of all, it doesn't work for computers. Every time you see a computer crash? That's not random behavior, that's the computer doing what it was told and the process being wrong. I work in IT, I see this type of stuff all the time. The single biggest problem with computers is that they do what we tell them instead of what we want them to do. (Computers don't speak "human.")
The other problem is that process is built for normal situations. It doesn't handle abnormal situations. If you follow the process anyway, you get nonsense for a result. The advantage to a human over a computer is that they can use their brain and sanity-check what the process gives them.
When nobody does that, we get absurd situations like a shoplifter with 48 convictions being recruited by a prosecutor to go after a merchant who performed a citizens arrest. The "process" was followed just fine, and the result was so outrageous that it embarrassed the entire government.
Then why not put in a request to update the process to further accommodate your requirements, using the approved Process Amendment Procedure? It's what I do.
Because I was a coop student on a work term, and didn't have the six years it'd take to push that through every level of management to get it changed (especially since purchasing is driven by legislation, which means it needs to go even higher).
Now I could do that, but it doesn't help you when you need the situation resolved today and can't get a meeting assembled of the necessary managers until 2011.
Bad idea. Politicians don't want to solve things. They want to get re-elected. They'll suck the cock of whoever will give them votes. This means they have no interest in solving a problem; they'll exacerbate it as much as they can because it will give them votes. Thank God most judges and bureaucracies are immune from the tyranny of the mob.
TSA could use a little tyranny of the mob right now. Politicians are there to hold the leash, and occasionally to yank it back. That's one of their most important functions.
As for people... yeah I do find they generally make the right decision if given the chance. Who knows more about the situation? The inspector who just went out to look at it, the manager two layers removed from the inspector who has never been in the field, or the policy wonk in another branch who knows nothing about the work at all but gets to write procedures governing it?
It's pretty clear to me where I want the decision making power to rest, and it's not with the policy wonk.