Grumpy Coworker

Blog

  • Diseconomy of Scale

    From Wikipedia: Diseconomy of Scale (The article has the “original research” warning, and therefore, should be taken with more of a grain of salt than even the average Wikipedia article.

    Diseconomies of scale are the forces that cause larger firms and governments to produce goods and services at increased per-unit costs. They are less well known than what economists have long understood as “economies of scale”, the forces which enable larger firms to produce goods and services at reduced per-unit costs. The concept may be applied to non-market entities as well. Some political philosophies, such as libertarianism, recognize the concept as applying to government.

    There are obvious efficiencies that come with increased size: The per-worker overhead of a leased office for two people can be slightly more than half that of an office for one person. Meanwhile, two people can potentially accomplish at least double what person can do.

    Moreover, there is a certain minimum size below which certain tasks are not feasible. One million individuals working alone would likely not be able to create a practical system of roadways going from Atlantic to Pacific coasts. Some things require big scale to make them happen.

    Unfortunately, there is a point where the additional costs incurred by adding additional resources [see Handshake Problem] are greater than the additional savings gained by sharing the resources with one more person.

    The scale problem illustrated with keeping track of organizational “to-do” lists:

    • 1 person – might be forced to write things down on a scrap of paper to keep things organized.
    • 2 people – leave post-it notes.
    • 5-10 people – use team to-do list software.
    • 10-30 people – may use more sophisticated, “issue-tracking” software.
    • 30-100 people – may use a more generic activity management software
    • 100+ people – have to be certified to be on the use of standardized language and procedures so that activities may be managed in the most effective way possible.

    The last step in the chain here are procedures for dealing with procedures to track tasks.  That’s a virtual calculus of bureaucracy. Considering how few people are any good at the mathematical calculus, which deals which actual numbers and formulas, I would imagine that bureaucratic calculus is nearly impossible.

  • Bookmark: Ever Feel Like the Latest Fad is Oddly Like the Old One?

    Break through Mo@#&#ing B@##%!t.

    Mo@#*&#ing Manifesto for Programming, Mo@#*&#ers (NSFW language)

  • Defeating the Clockwatching Game

    Your rivals and managers in the office are playing a clockwatching game with you. Among their tools are:

    • Email timestamps.
    • Parking lot spots.
    • People witnessing you walking in and walking out with your bags.
    • Instant messages peppered through lunch hours.
    • Away status on instant messenger.
    • Online status on instant messenger.

    These things cannot be used in your favor so much as having interference run against them.

    • Schedule Outlook Messages
    • Park in the farthest space available, always.
    • Keep a coffee mug in your car, and fill it up on a different floor. Walk in with you laptop powered up or a keep a spare notebook in your car and walk in with that.
    • Hook up your smartphone to an instant messaging client that works with your instant messenger.

    By the way, if you’re using this to slack off, your lack of productivity will ultimately be found out, you scoundrel.

  • Cubicle Maze

    If you search Google for “cubicle maze”, you’ll find about half a million results. Many people have made connection between cube walls and the the walls of a maze.

    Under normal circumstances, the wall angles are where the resemblance ends. However, after years of reworking office layouts and adding height to some walls for privacy, the plentiful aisles and virtual hallways begin to disappear. The contorting of sections of office has the same scrambling effect that turning random sides on a Rubik’s cube has.

    After hitting one too many dead ends trying to get to the elevator, I’m wondering if the fire marshall should be called. I mean, is there a clear evacuation path for everyone in the building? Are all the people in the office able get out of the area in which they’ve been walled in? Do they jump the walls to enter and exit their cubes?

    Maze, found on publicdomainpictures.net

  • The Social Bonds of a Team

    I’m sure that, somewhere out there, some popular business wisdom says that people get stagnant when they stay in the same core group too long. Maybe they’re supposed to start failing to come up with new ideas because they are stuck in the mode of groupthink. Maybe they’re too comfortable and complacent. Maybe well-bonded teams are supposedly full of self-promotion and cronyism.

    There must be some business wisdom that says that, because it seems that reorganizations often target the cohesive teams as non-productive.

    Here’s a different perspective: Teams are families. They have black sheep and dysfunctional members. However, they also find a way to survive despite the individual failings of each team member that would otherwise be somewhat insurmountable. Teams have an implicit loyalty and trust that bypasses the initial trust evaluation phase that occurs with a new relationship.

    What if teams function as an extension of the neural networks that shape the individual members of the team? Just as a person who takes up tennis one year, then switches to piano, then cooking,  never becomes good at anything, teams that never build a cohesive unit never become good at anything.

    Of course, reorganization itself doesn’t have to permanently break down team cohesiveness. New teams can form, just like people join new families. The danger occurs in the perpetual reorganization cycle, especially when team members have no real input about their interests. Such cycles have the same effect on team building that moving a child from foster home to foster home has on trust. Eventually, people just assume that any bonding effort will be wasted and quit bothering to try.

  • Just Because You’re the Customer Doesn’t Make You the Dictator

    Customer service is important.

    The customer is always right.

    Always make the customer happy.

    Guess what, though? The difference between a customer and a dictator is that while the optimal number of dictators is 1, there generally needs to be more than one customer.  If you are the only customer and provide full funding/payroll/benefits for the person who is serving you, that makes you an employer.

    Since there need to be multiple customers, that means there is a certain amount of prioritization involved. If there are other customers to be served, and no amount of attention is going to please you, you will be pushed to the lowest priority.

     

  • Bookmarked:

    6 common work habits that sabotage your productivity

    Glad to see status meetings on this list.

    Overall, compulsive activities and “keeping up appearances” activities are not very productive, and Lifehacker points the common ones out in the above article.

  • Stupid Questions are the Important Questions

    Say you’re sitting in a meeting, and a ridiculously stupid question pops into your head. You should ask the question.

    I’m not talking about a stupid question that would demonstrate your complete ignorance about some key concept that’s being discussed; however, you better ask that question, too–the consequences will be less painful if you ask the question before you completely crash and burn.

    Let’s get back to the stupid question in the back of your mind, though. There is probably a reason it popped up. Your subconscious probably heard two people trying to make 2+2=5.75 or something.

    This nagging thought in the back of your mind is like hearing what sounds vaguely like a choking sound coming from another room. It may be nothing, but it’s now your responsibility to check it out. It will be on your conscience if something goes horribly wrong.

  • Friday Distraction: Venice Beach Palm Trees

    Source: pdphoto.org

    Venice Beach Palm Trees

  • The Producers: Corporate Edition

    For those who haven’t seen The Producers (affiliate link), the premise is two producers who get the idea to oversell shares of a horrible play [hundreds of times over], so that they can make off with the surplus when the play ultimately flops early. Unfortunately, the play is smashing success and the producers are now on the hook for paying out many times the actual profits of the show.

    It seems like support resource planning often goes this way–departments budget and sell their services under the assumption of a best case scenario [virtually nothing goes wrong]. Ultimately, the first outage of services begets additional outages of services, and selling that same support resource to 250 people becomes a recipe for disaster.