Comments on: Clay Shirky on Process http://www.nehrlich.com/blog/2003/11/15/clay-shirky-on-process/ Eric Nehrlich, Unrepentant Generalist Wed, 20 Aug 2008 10:36:22 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2 By: Eric Nehrlich, Unrepentant Generalist || Social technologies || June || 2008 http://www.nehrlich.com/blog/2003/11/15/clay-shirky-on-process/#comment-161543 Eric Nehrlich, Unrepentant Generalist || Social technologies || June || 2008 Fri, 20 Jun 2008 15:42:06 +0000 http://www.nehrlich.com/blog/2003/11/15/clay-shirky-on-process/#comment-161543 [...] latching social technology is process. I tend to be dubious about process, but process is essentially a more restrictive form of stories. Instead of telling the general [...] […] latching social technology is process. I tend to be dubious about process, but process is essentially a more restrictive form of stories. Instead of telling the general […]

]]> By: Eric Nehrlich, Unrepentant Generalist || Playing the infinite game || March || 2008 http://www.nehrlich.com/blog/2003/11/15/clay-shirky-on-process/#comment-140101 Eric Nehrlich, Unrepentant Generalist || Playing the infinite game || March || 2008 Mon, 03 Mar 2008 01:26:17 +0000 http://www.nehrlich.com/blog/2003/11/15/clay-shirky-on-process/#comment-140101 [...] idea above that it is the process that is important, not the end result. You may recall that I am scornful at best of process in the workplace, preferring to put my trust in the resourcefulness of people. So how can I support this idea of [...] […] idea above that it is the process that is important, not the end result. You may recall that I am scornful at best of process in the workplace, preferring to put my trust in the resourcefulness of people. So how can I support this idea of […]

]]> By: Eric Nehrlich, Unrepentant Generalist || The Semantic Web || December || 2003 http://www.nehrlich.com/blog/2003/11/15/clay-shirky-on-process/#comment-138631 Eric Nehrlich, Unrepentant Generalist || The Semantic Web || December || 2003 Tue, 26 Feb 2008 04:49:09 +0000 http://www.nehrlich.com/blog/2003/11/15/clay-shirky-on-process/#comment-138631 [...] was recently brought to my attention after reading an article by Clay Shirky, previously mentioned in this blog. As usual, I agree with much of what Shirky has to say. But apparently, he ignited quite a [...] […] was recently brought to my attention after reading an article by Clay Shirky, previously mentioned in this blog. As usual, I agree with much of what Shirky has to say. But apparently, he ignited quite a […]

]]> By: Eric Nehrlich, Unrepentant Generalist || Here Comes Everybody, by Clay Shirky || February || 2008 http://www.nehrlich.com/blog/2003/11/15/clay-shirky-on-process/#comment-138629 Eric Nehrlich, Unrepentant Generalist || Here Comes Everybody, by Clay Shirky || February || 2008 Tue, 26 Feb 2008 04:46:58 +0000 http://www.nehrlich.com/blog/2003/11/15/clay-shirky-on-process/#comment-138629 [...] his work. Several early posts on this blog were commentary on his articles covering topics such as process and situated software. As a faculty member of the ITP program at NYU, he writes incisively about [...] […] his work. Several early posts on this blog were commentary on his articles covering topics such as process and situated software. As a faculty member of the ITP program at NYU, he writes incisively about […]

]]> By: Dion Dock http://www.nehrlich.com/blog/2003/11/15/clay-shirky-on-process/#comment-90187 Dion Dock Fri, 02 Nov 2007 23:03:26 +0000 http://www.nehrlich.com/blog/2003/11/15/clay-shirky-on-process/#comment-90187 Take a quick read through the (Joel recommended) book "Slack". The author makes an interesting observation about process: the hard part is not covered by the process. For example, to fix a bug: a) create a branch b) create a test c) when the work lasts more than 4 hours, write a spec d) fix the code e) checkin and test Obviously, the real work is in b & d and maybe c, but the process doesn't help you do that. The process is helping with the easy things. Take a quick read through the (Joel recommended) book “Slack”. The author makes an interesting observation about process: the hard part is not covered by the process.

For example, to fix a bug:
a) create a branch
b) create a test
c) when the work lasts more than 4 hours, write a spec
d) fix the code
e) checkin and test

Obviously, the real work is in b & d and maybe c, but the process doesn’t help you do that. The process is helping with the easy things.

]]> By: Eric Nehrlich, Unrepentant Generalist || Taking responsibility || July || 2004 http://www.nehrlich.com/blog/2003/11/15/clay-shirky-on-process/#comment-23112 Eric Nehrlich, Unrepentant Generalist || Taking responsibility || July || 2004 Thu, 15 Mar 2007 04:44:47 +0000 http://www.nehrlich.com/blog/2003/11/15/clay-shirky-on-process/#comment-23112 [...] I perked up when I heard that. It ties in perfectly with Clay Shirky’s observation that “Process is an embedded reaction to prior stupidity”. In fact, I’ll quote more from Shirky’s article to make the point: “We need a process to ensure that the client does not get half-finished design sketches” is code for “Greg fucked up.” The problem, of course, is that much of this process nevertheless gets put in place, meaning that an organization slowly forms around avoiding the dumbest behaviors of its mediocre employees, resulting in layers of gunk that keep its best employees from doing interesting work, because they too have to sign The Form Designed to Keep You From Doing The Stupid Thing That One Guy Did Three Years Ago. [...] […] I perked up when I heard that. It ties in perfectly with Clay Shirky’s observation that “Process is an embedded reaction to prior stupidity”. In fact, I’ll quote more from Shirky’s article to make the point: “We need a process to ensure that the client does not get half-finished design sketches” is code for “Greg fucked up.” The problem, of course, is that much of this process nevertheless gets put in place, meaning that an organization slowly forms around avoiding the dumbest behaviors of its mediocre employees, resulting in layers of gunk that keep its best employees from doing interesting work, because they too have to sign The Form Designed to Keep You From Doing The Stupid Thing That One Guy Did Three Years Ago. […]

]]> By: Eric Nehrlich, Unrepentant Generalist || Rules as thinking substitutes http://www.nehrlich.com/blog/2003/11/15/clay-shirky-on-process/#comment-1123 Eric Nehrlich, Unrepentant Generalist || Rules as thinking substitutes Thu, 09 Feb 2006 02:41:07 +0000 http://www.nehrlich.com/blog/2003/11/15/clay-shirky-on-process/#comment-1123 [...] Rules are merely the codification of a good idea, as Shirky observes about business processes. A rule was a solution for a given time and place. But when we treat that rule as an absolute and obey it unthinkingly, we forget those localized caveats and what made it appropriate in that situation. In Carse’s terminology, when we take judgment and fossilize it into an absolute rule, we are changing things from an infinite game to a finite game. [...] […] Rules are merely the codification of a good idea, as Shirky observes about business processes. A rule was a solution for a given time and place. But when we treat that rule as an absolute and obey it unthinkingly, we forget those localized caveats and what made it appropriate in that situation. In Carse’s terminology, when we take judgment and fossilize it into an absolute rule, we are changing things from an infinite game to a finite game. […]

]]> By: Eric Nehrlich, Unrepentant Generalist || Balancing control and autonomy || February || 2005 http://www.nehrlich.com/blog/2003/11/15/clay-shirky-on-process/#comment-1084 Eric Nehrlich, Unrepentant Generalist || Balancing control and autonomy || February || 2005 Thu, 29 Dec 2005 02:02:29 +0000 http://www.nehrlich.com/blog/2003/11/15/clay-shirky-on-process/#comment-1084 [...] Part of the issue is the unwillingness of management to give up control to their subordinates. Even when they do give up control, they often restrict behavior with processes and SOPs to such an extent that the subordinates have no freedom of action. There’s some good reasons for that - the processes are often put in place to prevent bad things from happening to the company. However, by not giving the employee any freedom of action, the company is also preventing its employees from contributing in new and unforeseen ways. In other words, it’s a balance between “doing no harm” to the company, and the risk/reward of giving employees control. [...] […] Part of the issue is the unwillingness of management to give up control to their subordinates. Even when they do give up control, they often restrict behavior with processes and SOPs to such an extent that the subordinates have no freedom of action. There’s some good reasons for that - the processes are often put in place to prevent bad things from happening to the company. However, by not giving the employee any freedom of action, the company is also preventing its employees from contributing in new and unforeseen ways. In other words, it’s a balance between “doing no harm” to the company, and the risk/reward of giving employees control. […]

]]>