[HN Gopher] "Blue Light" creating capacity for nothing (2007)
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       "Blue Light" creating capacity for nothing (2007)
        
       Author : Symmetry
       Score  : 92 points
       Date   : 2022-12-24 15:06 UTC (3 days ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (theoryofconstraints.blogspot.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (theoryofconstraints.blogspot.com)
        
       | vivegi wrote:
       | Great article. It is almost always the case that we live under
       | "assumed constraints". Most of the time when we question the
       | underlying assumptions we are able to break the constraint or
       | relax it to obtain a better solution.
       | 
       | The Goal, by Eliyahu M. Goldratt is highly recommended for
       | understanding Theory of Constraints told from the view of a
       | fictional plant manager.
        
         | hn_go_brrrrr wrote:
         | I read that, having received a similar recommendation, but
         | after I finished it I had no idea how to translate that into my
         | own job (I do not manage a factory).
        
           | sokoloff wrote:
           | What's the thing that adds value to your customer? What is
           | the part they're actually paying for?
           | 
           | How much of your time is spent on that thing/those things?
           | 
           | How much is spent on other things and how can you reduce
           | that, especially for any resources that are your constrained
           | (rate-limiting) resources?
        
       | jancsika wrote:
       | Where's the part where the welders start doing needless welding
       | to satisfy the helper's target?
       | 
       | Or is the point that a good consultant knows to leave before that
       | happens?
        
         | xyzelement wrote:
         | Your comment reads like you have an ax to grind against
         | consultants and have a foregone conclusion separate from the
         | content?
         | 
         | In this story, the consultant found a way to remove stupid/low-
         | skilled work from the welders' todo. They no longer have to
         | lift shit, take off their gear, and peel plastic off parts.
         | None of that sounds fun and presumably welders are happy not to
         | be doing that.
         | 
         | I suspect a welder prefers to weld. The consultant found a way
         | to let welders do what they chose/are trained to do, which is
         | weld. I don't see any sort of bullshit metric/target imposed on
         | them.
        
           | sitkack wrote:
           | > remove stupid/low-skilled work
           | 
           | This is an example of what I mentioned in my other comment.
        
             | sokoloff wrote:
             | It is literally stupid work to require them to repeatedly
             | suit-up in and later remove PPE in order to another task.
             | 
             | It is low-skilled work to move a part from here to there as
             | compared to welding.
             | 
             | These are literally correct and practically useful
             | descriptions.
        
         | danuker wrote:
         | Many humans avoid malicious compliance, because they want to
         | keep their job.
        
           | pxx wrote:
           | This isn't malicious compliance. This is just what
           | organically happens -- see Goodhart's law.
        
         | count wrote:
         | More likely the consultant helped them learn that now that
         | they're so efficient, they can downsize the welding team.
        
           | D-Coder wrote:
           | Or helped them be so efficient that the company didn't go out
           | of business.
        
           | mft_ wrote:
           | That was my first thought: rather than three or more welders
           | welding ~10% of the time, they needed a team of helpers
           | setting things up, and a single welder moving quickly from
           | job to job...
        
             | LorenPechtel wrote:
             | Yup. A welder's helper is a lot cheaper than a welder, not
             | to mention all the gear time that produces no value for
             | anyone. You want to set things up to the high skill workers
             | are as much as possible able to spend their time on the
             | high skill task.
        
       | twobitshifter wrote:
       | It's incredible that one person was able to handle all the work
       | that took up 90% of the welders time. Lots of time must have been
       | spent getting in and out of gear. I'd expect that one guy to end
       | up the bottleneck and the welders to be waiting for him to bring
       | them parts, but it says he even as time to peel the plastic!
       | 
       | I imagine the blue light applied to programming would be a crude
       | tool. I want to hear keys clacking? See issues closed, pull
       | requests? But we can ask what are the things developers are doing
       | which interrupt them from coding and could there be a benefit to
       | someone employed to handle those distractions?
        
         | nikanj wrote:
         | Not all of it, just enough of it to move the bottleneck
         | somewhere else. A factory is always bottlenecked by something,
         | sales if nothing else
        
         | crdrost wrote:
         | So the derivation of Eli Goldratt's ideas for programming is
         | necessarily different because we are doing artisanal work
         | rather than manufacturing. But yes taken naively it is a
         | measure of Git commits merged into the main branch after
         | running precommit checks and tests and code review and whatever
         | else, and ideally shipping to prod directly. And this is where
         | you want to enable the ability to ship broken code without
         | breaking prod (feature toggles are super handy for this)...
         | This speeds the code review time for example, "oh all that
         | stuff is behind a feature toggle, we won't ship it until it's
         | ready."
         | 
         | A better derivation of Eli's ideas ultimately causes your
         | entire team to work on one feature before deploying another
         | before deploying another. Sprint planning is "what do we want
         | to take on next, how are we separating it across the team, and
         | how will we pass the baton?" The relay-race baton-pass becomes
         | the crucial concept, whoever has the baton is expected to be
         | working 100% on this thing and only this thing, anyone who does
         | not have the baton is either meant to be preparing to receive
         | the baton, or else they are free to work on whatever
         | refactoring or bug-fixing or side-feature or user support or
         | whatever needs to be done. They are the equivalent of this non-
         | welder helping out. And this is also why it's important for the
         | baton to pass from person to person, because it can be
         | exhausting to hold the baton for too long: what do you call
         | someone who sprints for an hour--a jogger.
         | 
         | This also unlocks the true value of daily standup, which is the
         | person with the baton telling everybody else what they need in
         | order to be successful, and the person who is about to receive
         | the baton to be aware about the timescale at which they have to
         | drop everything else they are doing and work 100% on the next
         | part of the sprint, and the rest of the team checking in on the
         | personal health of the person who has the baton, making sure
         | that they are not overworking themselves to death. Are you
         | okay?
         | 
         | What's at stake is covered in Goldratt's book _Critical Chain_
         | , that in a "project context" there is a complex network of
         | dependencies, including hidden ones that come from the raw
         | logical fact that one person can't be working on two different
         | parts at the same time, and the constraint, the thing that
         | actually needs to be tracked and preserved is temporal _safety
         | buffer_. The default state for a project is that if a step is
         | completed late, that delay has passed on to the next step, but
         | if a step is completed early, that advantage is not
         | communicated to the next step because the person working on the
         | next step isn 't ready to drop everything and start working on
         | the project yet.
         | 
         | I actually use these principles to manage the cooking of
         | Thanksgiving meals for our family. My wife was very upset the
         | first time I did it because there was a lot of drawing graphs
         | and stuff, a bunch of diagrams, I had never done it before. But
         | now she wants me to do it every year because it is absolutely
         | intoxicating for her to ask me "what should I be doing right
         | now?" and for me to reply " nothing, you should rest, but in
         | about 30 minutes you are going to have to drop whatever you are
         | doing and put together everything for the corn casserole."
         | 
         | That this is how it works should not shock us, not those of us
         | working in web development. Everybody here who works in web
         | development should understand that you overprovision your
         | servers and 90% of the time. They don't do anything. That's not
         | for no reason, it's not because we're wasteful, it because it
         | gives us a much better latency on our incoming requests. Making
         | it clear what the Sprint goal is, and whose shoulders that goal
         | is currently falling upon, is part of making a very low latency
         | system which can respond to whatever fires occur on a day-to-
         | day basis while still getting these longer term projects done
         | ahead of schedule. 80% of the team _should_ be resting or
         | dealing with the latest crisis while one person is legit
         | sprinting on the Sprint goal, and progress on a feature should
         | never have to stall just because the sprinter 's significant
         | other is suddenly in the hospital: the feature was owned by the
         | team and the whole team needs to be able to work on it, with
         | everybody checking their work in daily and everybody willing to
         | help out to make the group's deadlines.
         | 
         | I've kind of given the sales pitch for it so let me give one
         | major limitation, a lot of our current methodology is
         | structured in order to identify underperforming people by
         | concrete metrics like how many features they complete, how many
         | story points are those features, and the above methodology kind
         | of creates a space where people can hide: they never take the
         | baton so they never are really in the hot seat, but the whole
         | group takes credit for the success of their individuals. Random
         | assignment and pair programming are one mechanism to rectify
         | the concern and then rectify an obvious concern with that
         | solution ("what if we give a frontend task to a backend
         | programmer?"--answer is, they should do the frontend task, but
         | as the person holding the baton they are running the show and
         | thus entitled to say "I want help, can someone who knows more
         | about frontend code pair with me so that I can just ask "how do
         | I do that in the browser?").
        
       | hiAndrewQuinn wrote:
       | This brought a smile to my face. Solid industrial engineering
       | fundamentals brought to the table.
        
       | ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
       | This reminds me of the fight I had to hire an Infrastructure
       | Engineer (they call them DevOps, these days).
       | 
       | It was like pulling teeth, but, in fairly short order, the chap I
       | hired became the most popular member of the team.
        
         | hinkley wrote:
         | I had to beg for a simple server to separate staging and
         | customers demos once, that were jamming up half a day a week.
         | 
         | The official request I made said the server would pay for
         | itself in eight weeks. I think the boss finally understood why
         | I was being so grumpy about it at that point. Or maybe you
         | could just trust the people you claim to trust.
        
           | DigiDigiorno wrote:
           | Persuasively communicating cost-savings in a budget increase
           | request?
           | 
           | I'm so sorry to inform you, but you have management written
           | on you.
           | 
           | (But in all seriousness, communication is an important
           | management skill, it's good you explained it so directly, but
           | ideally a manager would communicate back-and-forth without
           | needing to be spoonfed all at once.)
        
         | slowhand09 wrote:
         | My current environment... we develop on a production
         | environment.
         | 
         | And our toolchain... put it this way. We went from no
         | documented procedures, to several. And the several... have no
         | date, no version, no author, no revision control...
         | 
         | Friday is my last day. I am so happy.
        
       | nerdponx wrote:
       | This is a great story because it's not just about welding. I have
       | seen many data science teams working under similar conditions:
       | spending 90% of their time doing miscellaneous bullshit and 10%
       | doing data science _at best_.
       | 
       | Recall that data science itself is 80-90% data cleaning and basic
       | exploratory analysis, so that means no more than 1-4% of their
       | overall time is spent doing the work that they're actually
       | trained to do, and that you are actually paying them to do.
       | 
       | They look productive because they are always busy. But really
       | they need helpers (data engineers and dev/data ops people) to do
       | all the random software work, so the data scientists can actually
       | build models, meet with senior leadership, and all the other
       | actually value-generating work that justifies their high price
       | tag, and moreover keeps them happy with the work so they are more
       | likely to actually stay at your company.
        
         | FredPret wrote:
         | That can still be ridiculously profitable if the output is good
         | enough and general enough. The human mind has insane leverage,
         | especially in the modern world.
         | 
         | For example, Newton / Leibnitz's invention of calculus created
         | much more than enough value to pay for every single
         | mathematician ever since, and that wasn't even all they did.
        
       | phyzome wrote:
       | There appears to be a typo in the original post title -- perhaps
       | s/for/from/?
        
       | [deleted]
        
       | larrydag wrote:
       | The article's story anecdote of "blue light" is about finding the
       | true value in a process. Blue light means the welder is actually
       | creating value in the product. Anything else in the process does
       | not help build value to the product. It is all non-value added
       | activities. The non-value added activities might be necessary
       | such as setup, delivery, reposition or what not but it doesn't
       | drive value. By maximizing the blue light welding operation it
       | maximizes value being created. Maximizing value will minimize
       | extraneous activities that don't help make a finished product and
       | should decrease cycle time for the value-added activity.
       | 
       | This all can be learned from The Goal by Goldgratt which is a
       | story about theory of constraints.
       | 
       | https://www.tocinstitute.org/the-goal-summary.html
        
         | sitkack wrote:
         | Those are things are also necessary, they just don't require a
         | welder to do them. All the talk of "value" will pollute your
         | thinking and encourage you to be a productivity and value
         | bigot.
        
           | xyzelement wrote:
           | Can you explain what you mean by "productivity and value
           | bigot?"
           | 
           | In my mind productivity and value generation are major
           | virtues that benefit the doer and society, big "bigot" has a
           | negative connotation and I don't understand how it goes
           | together.
        
             | thinkmcfly wrote:
             | Like a VC for instance. They are blood sucking leeches upon
             | our society
        
             | sitkack wrote:
             | Devaluing anything that isn't what the executive considers
             | value. One wants optimize systems, not just increase the
             | duty cycle of the thing that is expensive. By focusing on
             | the only thing that one considers "adding value", the "non-
             | value add" tasks and positions become viewed as low
             | quality, low skilled and fungible.
             | 
             | The person who fills and jigs the welder's pipeline is just
             | as valuable from a systems perspective as the welders.
        
               | matt3D wrote:
               | Neglecting the person who fills the jigs will lead to
               | less ur time in the long run though.
               | 
               | I'm guessing your issue is not with those that are
               | fixated on productivity, but those that are just poorly
               | educated in the complexity of how to calculate it.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2022-12-27 23:00 UTC)