[HN Gopher] The Tyranny of 'The Plan' (2013)
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       The Tyranny of 'The Plan' (2013)
        
       Author : cangencer
       Score  : 86 points
       Date   : 2023-01-10 16:36 UTC (6 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (chrisgagne.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (chrisgagne.com)
        
       | numlocked wrote:
       | I loved this, and in particular how to think about teams,
       | experts, and workstreams. But the physical construction (in my
       | experience) has a limited number of software analogs. I wrote
       | about this a long time ago:
       | 
       | We have a problem. People can't get from one area of town to a
       | neighboring area because there is a river in between and no road.
       | So let's build a bridge.
       | 
       | [Long discussion of how to plan to build a bridge in the real
       | world]
       | 
       | Now, let's do it in software.
       | 
       | We're going to start by focusing on the problem to solve: get
       | people from A to B. With software, the solution isn't necessarily
       | as obvious as it is in the physical world. Maybe we need a
       | bridge. But maybe we need a ferry. Or a helicopter service. Or
       | maybe we should just move the two pieces of land closer together.
       | Or freeze the river.
       | 
       | Customers speak in terms of solutions: I want a bridge. I want a
       | bigger kitchen. But with software we know to be wary of this:
       | unlike the physical world, the users of software often do not
       | have a good intuitive understanding of what's possible. So while
       | they speak in terms of functionality and solutions, it's our job
       | to root out the real problem and come up with an appropriate
       | solution - which we might also not have a good intuitive
       | understanding of.
        
       | cs702 wrote:
       | I found the OP very insightful, and would recommend reading and
       | thinking about it. The lessons we can draw from the construction
       | of The Empire State and other buildings of that era, before the
       | advent of computers, are applicable to any large, capital-
       | intensive project.
       | 
       | My only reservation is that the OP fails to mention that some
       | workers _died_ during the construction of The Empire State
       | building: According to the builder,  "only" 5 workers died, but
       | according to a newspaper, 14 workers died.[a] No one in the
       | developed world would want to finish a project faster and for
       | less money if the cost has to be measured in human lives --
       | expect in extreme circumstances, like war.[b]
       | 
       | See also: https://patrickcollison.com/fast .
       | 
       | --
       | 
       | [a]
       | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_State_Building#Construc...
       | 
       | [b] In some parts of the world, projects are routinely finished
       | faster at the expense of human lives. For example, according to
       | https://www.theguardian.com/football/2022/nov/27/qatar-death... ,
       | between 6,500 and 15,000 workers died, and more were injured, to
       | build all the stadiums and facilities in time for the World Cup
       | in Qatar, a tiny country in the Middle East / Western Asia with a
       | total population of under 3M people.
       | 
       | --
       | 
       | EDITS: Added " -- expect in extreme circumstances, like war" to
       | the last paragraph, and a link to Patrick Collison's fantastic
       | page with examples of "people quickly accomplishing ambitious
       | things together" and thoughts on why projects take so much longer
       | today.
        
         | projektfu wrote:
         | https://www.history.com/news/mohawk-skywalkers-ironworkers-n...
         | 
         | [warning: auto-play video]
         | 
         | It is an interesting history of the Mohawk ironworkers who
         | built NYC. I came across another exhibit once that said that
         | the ironworkers originally took the jobs because, culturally,
         | they appreciated the risk and heroism, and then it became a
         | tradition of the tribe. In fact, it was probably this risk
         | tolerance that kept them working without harnesses and
         | lifelines for as long as they did.
         | 
         | At the end of the above article, it says that 30-50 ironworkers
         | still die each year.
        
         | cm2012 wrote:
         | I strongly suspect that the excellent planning behind Empire
         | State led to less deaths than equivalent towers from that time.
        
         | clairity wrote:
         | BLS says that roughly 5000 people die in construction accidents
         | annually. those deaths are certainly tragic, but not
         | disproportional.
        
           | yamtaddle wrote:
           | Ordinary house roofing work (and, by extension, things like
           | rooftop solar installations/maintenance) is terribly
           | dangerous. Tons of deaths and serious injuries per year.
           | Little attention on it at all, let alone political movement
           | toward making it safer.
        
             | nerdponx wrote:
             | Isn't this partly because roofers rarely take the full
             | "correct" range of safety precautions while working,
             | because they would significantly slow down the work?
        
               | ElevenLathe wrote:
               | It probably also has to do with the fact that most of the
               | work is small contractors, many without even a business
               | license or insurance, or even just the homeowners
               | themselves. Ironworkers deal with big structures where
               | the financing demands large business entities and
               | therefore usually unions, both of which are typically
               | fanatical about worker safety.
        
               | mrguyorama wrote:
               | Also because a lot of them are of the "hardhats are
               | because we live in a nanny state" and then fall off a
               | roof or fall backwards on the ladder, because they are
               | fabulously un-self aware, _DAD_
        
         | yamtaddle wrote:
         | > No one here would want to finish a project faster if the cost
         | would be measured in human lives.
         | 
         | People--including some here--choose risk to life for greater
         | productivity, all the time. Every advocate of going back to the
         | office, in places without excellent public transit or
         | walkability, is proposing to trade some serious micromorts for
         | extra productivity (driving's dangerous).
        
           | axus wrote:
           | Apparently there was a historic increase in US road
           | fatalities in 2020 and 2021 instead: https://en.wikipedia.org
           | /wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in...
           | 
           | Maybe having more food delivery guys on the road is worse
           | than more commuters, for public safety? Let's wait and see
           | how 2022 did.
        
           | majormajor wrote:
           | I think there's a pretty clear line in many places in today's
           | western world about the difference between "directly causing
           | death" and "causes fractional death."
           | 
           | So comparing "directly dying from construction" to "commuting
           | in a car" is a big reach.
           | 
           | Diet, stress, physically-taxing-if-not-directly-fatal jobs,
           | cancer-linked chemicals, pollution, etc. Tradeoffs made at
           | both the societal and individual level every day.
           | 
           | Even in cars, consider the difference in attention "death
           | from direct failure of the vehicle or manufacturer" gets
           | compared to the more-random "accident that could've happened
           | to anyone" increased-death-probability cases.
           | 
           | And that ties us neatly back to construction! We have many
           | more things in place for construction safety - from
           | regulations to equipment to practices - but it doesn't
           | prevent there from being _any_ loss of life, still. We just
           | don 't want to go backward.
        
           | eternityforest wrote:
           | Yeah, and that's a big problem, that leads to people not
           | really having the choice at all, because they are forced to
           | keep up with people who value productivity over safety.
        
         | atoav wrote:
         | "No one in the developed world would want to finish a project
         | faster and for less money if the cost has to be measured in
         | human lives -- expect in extreme circumstances, like war."
         | 
         | Are you sure of that? If the pandemic brought me any surprising
         | new insight, then it would be how big the part of any given
         | population is with hundred thousands dying if it just
         | _inconveniences_ them a little less. It needs no war, it needs
         | people not being able to go to the hairdresser for a month.
        
         | newsclues wrote:
         | > No one in the developed world would want to finish a project
         | faster and for less money if the cost had to be measured in
         | human lives.
         | 
         | Depends. I think the Manhattan Project killed more people (not
         | including using the bombs in combat).
        
           | ciscoriordan wrote:
           | Possibly including John von Neumann, one of the greatest
           | polymaths ever. Everyday life now would be different if he
           | had lived to a normal life expectancy instead of dying to
           | aggressive cancer at 53.
        
             | newsclues wrote:
             | Louis Slotin was a scientific hero for myself as a young
             | person.
        
           | cs702 wrote:
           | Good point! I added " -- expect in extreme circumstances,
           | like war" to the last paragraph. Thank you.
        
         | nerdponx wrote:
         | I wonder how much longer the Empire State Building construction
         | would have taken, or what other compromises would have been
         | required (fewer floors, less ornamentation, etc) in order to
         | prevent those deaths.
        
       | peteradio wrote:
       | I'm not really understanding the distinction between a "plan" and
       | a "workflow". It sounds like they had a plan but we are bending
       | over backwards in TFA to call it something else because a plan is
       | bad in some agile circles.
        
         | clairity wrote:
         | it's subtle, but "plan" (material resource planning, MRP) is
         | essentially waterfall in this context, where you design first,
         | then do work breakdown into a waterfall schedule. it suffers
         | from cascading delays because of the bullwhip effect (among
         | other things). it's project oriented (a 1-off, 1-time event).
         | 
         | in contrast, "workflow" is akin to kanban in this context. you
         | start with constraints (in this case time and money) and then
         | design the system to those constraints. mary, the speaker,
         | mentions that they had 4 different, decoupled workflows, which
         | helped them avoid those pesky cascading delays. workflows are
         | process oriented (repeatable events), so steel construction,
         | for example, was thought of as an separate repeatable (if
         | varying) process (swimlanes, in kanban parlance) as they went
         | up in height. kanban also focuses on realtime learning and
         | adjustments as well as just-in-time inventory systems
         | (important to steel being delivered on time, like using 2
         | different suppliers to make sure there were no delays).
         | 
         | this is the stuff you learn in operations class in business
         | school (or some engineering programs), as did chris (the author
         | of the article/blog), who went to ucla anderson.
        
           | peteradio wrote:
           | I think what trips me up then is that "Plan" refers to a
           | specific type of planning, I guess "MRP", but colloquially it
           | would refer to anything that attempts to project how
           | something will be done. Unfortunately I've had employers
           | insist that planning in the colloquial sense was akin to
           | waterfall and since we were agile it was verboten.
        
             | projektfu wrote:
             | Obviously there were blueprints and solid estimates of the
             | materials and labor required to build the thing. This was
             | no Gaudi cathedral. But there was nothing telling someone
             | when things would be at which stage of construction, just
             | the knowledge that some parts needed to get done in the
             | summer and the whole thing needed to be ready for occupancy
             | on May 1.
             | 
             | I think the story of the submarine/Polaris missile was more
             | interesting. They produced the plan and basically ignored
             | it, and the PERT planning exercise has subsequently been
             | cargo-culted for years.
        
             | clairity wrote:
             | yah, plan is an overloaded word, like most words. here it
             | seems to boil down to the old adage of "good, fast, cheap.
             | choose two."[0] if you set scope and budget (the "plan"
             | version), then you have to be flexible on deadline. if you
             | set deadline and budget (the "workflow" version), you have
             | to be flexible on scope. for the empire state building,
             | they designed the building (controlled scope) to fit the
             | budget and deadline.
             | 
             | whether it's waterfall or agile shouldn't really matter. in
             | agile, there is planning, but often it's workflow based
             | (tracking flow via story points, or what not).
             | 
             | [0]: https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_management_triangle
        
         | anm89 wrote:
         | The workflow is a function. You put in an input and get a
         | consistent output within certain parameters
         | 
         | The plan is a procedural instruction list. It lacks
         | consistency. It is whatever procedural set of things happened
         | to have been written down. You wouldn't plan to reuse it like
         | you would with the function because it only applies to that
         | specific issue
        
       | twobitshifter wrote:
       | the thing here that gets me c when compared to software is they
       | had a schedule and they hit it early. This can happen in
       | software, I think the appstore/iphone sdk is an example of having
       | a date to hit and sticking to it, but it's rare. I'd love to read
       | an article about how the development of the iphone sdk and app
       | store was managed, to see if it parallels these conclusions from
       | the Empire State Building.
        
       | V__ wrote:
       | The "four pacemakers" where "every one of these workflows was
       | separate from the other workflows" could be read like an argument
       | for microservices, doesn't it? I assume it's harder to make
       | software as independent as say windows and floors, but I find it
       | interesting to think about.
        
         | layer8 wrote:
         | It's more generally an argument for modularization, and for
         | establishing well-defined interfaces between modules.
         | Microservices is just one way this may get manifested.
         | 
         | A seminal paper is _On the Criteria To Be Used in Decomposing
         | Systems into Modules_ by David Parnas.
        
       | anm89 wrote:
       | > If you have a stable system, then there is no use to specify a
       | goal. You will get whatever the system will deliver. A goal
       | beyond the capability of the system will not be reached.
       | If you have not a stable system, then there is again no point in
       | setting a goal. There is no way to know what the system will
       | produce: it has no capability.              As we have already
       | remarked, management by numerical goal is an attempt to    manage
       | without knowledge of what to do, and in fact is usually
       | management by fear.             Anyone may now understand the
       | fallacy of "management by the numbers".
       | 
       | Love this quote
        
       | thuridas wrote:
       | I was surprised that the alleged successful PERT origin was just
       | theater for keeping politician money.
       | 
       | In fact this is my typical feeling with all Gantt charts.
        
       | gonzus wrote:
       | This article reminded me of this other classic:
       | https://web.mnstate.edu/alm/humor/ThePlan.htm
        
         | layer8 wrote:
         | It makes it clear that the main fault lies with managers. ;)
        
       | [deleted]
        
       | chitowneats wrote:
       | [flagged]
        
         | QuiDortDine wrote:
         | Do you really feel like this is a real contribution to the
         | conversation? Agile coaches help stabilize software
         | development, and meditation teachers teach a valuable self-
         | regulation skill. You not wanting or valuing something doesn't
         | make it "snake oil".
        
           | chitowneats wrote:
           | I value stability in software development. I value self-
           | regulation. I do not need someone on my team to encourage
           | these. I need software engineers who have these values.
           | "Gurus" like this person are an unnecessary cost, if not an
           | outright scam.
        
         | xyzelement wrote:
         | I am iffy on agile (I feel like it is a codification of common
         | sense, but people who need common sense codified are going to
         | fuck up anyway) but I think meditation has proven universally
         | valuable with no controversy.
         | 
         | A hedge fund I used to work at would encourage and pay for
         | Transcendental Meditation training ($1000 I believe) because
         | the correlation between meditation and better decisions
         | making/collaboration was so blatant.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2023-01-10 23:00 UTC)