Hacker News Reader

Comment by burlesona | Hacker News Reader

This is one of the core messages of Strong Towns (strongtowns.org).

In general humans get really excited about building new and transformative things, and we have a big blind spot to ongoing maintenance. In particular we've come to utterly depend on the things that were "shiny and new" back in first generation of suburbanization (50s - 70s), while many of those things have been poorly maintained, and in many cases the economic returns on that infrastructure don't actually justify the ongoing maintenance cost.

It's a dangerous drag on the economy, but we're stuck with it now, and the lesson learned is we should prioritize maintenance in our thought process and make sure we're getting a positive return out of the infrastructure liabilities we already have before creating new ones.

View on HN

> In general humans get really excited about building new and transformative things, and we have a big blind spot to ongoing maintenance.

The IT industry mirrors this exactly, where we need a constant churn of new shiny tech for new projects. It means that many projects are done while still learning some tech rather that using well understood because it is unfashionable.

Exactly...90% or more of Security SEM platform sales could be saved if the new kids had a good command of syslog, awk and grep.

Most of those tools exist to check boxes. 80% of cyber stuff is bullshit or snake oil.

Yup. I spent some months working on a product in this space, and the most surprising takeaway I had was that there's a risk that by buying such a product, you're exposing yourself to legal problems - e.g. when a product tells you about some potential security issue, you can no longer claim ignorance. This apparently informs buying decisions, so product makers need to take it into account.

A good SIEM can search terabytes of logs quickly and aggregate interesting things like least common values. Good luck doing that with grep.

Which is great if you have terabytes of logs, but GP's point is that the majority don't have that problem. Simple solutions are, well, simpler.

I worked for an ex-Australian Navy commander who managed various Asset and Maintenance groups for various organisations. The subject of maintenance is a very interesting subject.

If your maintenance regime is done properly, over the long haul, you save a fortune. Do your normal maintenance, refurbish at the correct times and replace with new when the % maintenance cost has reached the trigger point.

This means that every asset lasts longer (on the whole) costing you less and you get some return on that asset in the end. The one thing that generally gets in the way of proper maintenance are the accountants. They have a penchant for not understanding maintenance and future costs.

I have seen them willing to spend up to 80% of the cost of replacement for an item on repairing an item year on year, when it would be better to simply replace the item in question. They also seem to have the general attitude of "It's working therefore we do not need to spend any money on maintenance for it." This attitude seems to ensure that all sorts of organisations have a continually degrading asset base instead of a maintained asset base.

If you were to look at each state government in any country, you will find that most of the state assets are ill-maintained and that to get them to the correct maintenance level would be more than the current state budgets.

The other side of this is that accountants have a skewed point of view as to what is an asset and what is not. As such they will spend plenty of money on smaller item with replacement rather than refurbish or repair those items. Hence, office furniture, phones, computers, etc, are treated as consumable items and not worth repairing. So why would suppliers and manufacturers be bothered to make these items repairable?

Change the mindset of those whose responsibility is the finance and your will see a change in what supplier and manufacturers do in terms of repairability of their products. The small scale consumer such as us would then then benefit from this.

It effect, the mentality of not repairing items has a number of interconnected causes that feed the problem, from the basic tax law and attitudes of accountants "protecting" the bottom line, to companies using this attitude to make it cheaper to not design products that are repairable, to patent law and copyright law, to that simple staple called greed and the other stable called politics.

I've witnessed same effect in the US Military. The problem is, and always was, they're spending other people's money. They don't need to make the best long-term decision, they need to make the 'what fits in my budget this quarter' decision.

Couldn't agree more! Considering that up to 50% of total costs are actually coming from operating a system I'm still puzzled to what degree that is ignored.

Usually, you find that kind of "accountant" (a good one is worth his weight in gold in these cases) in the supporting bureaucracy. Actual user tend to understand the need for spare part availability and sound maintenance. Bureaucrats care about formalities, usually sitting in an office they have no incentive to be any different.

from the basic tax law and attitudes of accountants "protecting" the bottom line

Which tax laws in particular?

Culturally we just don't seem to particularly value old things that still work & have been well taken care of.

In the West, I agree. Here in Japan, they seem to value old things and their maintenance more than I've ever seen anywhere else.

Not sure what you mean by "the West" but here in Western Europe we have have lots of protection for old buildings.

In the UK they're referred to as "Listed Buildings" and are protected by law.

We also have a strong heritage cultures e.g. things like classic car clubs, historical farm displays, etc.

I can't comment on Japanese homes but I can tell you it would be pretty easy to find examples of a 500-1000 year old houses or pubs still in daily use through out the UK .

It used to be the case that Japanese cars were bought new with vehicles exported after only a few years of use, although I believe that this has lessened somewhat now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_used_vehicle_exportin...

Except for houses ironically - they are depreciating assets such that refurbishing is notable.

Especially if they're people.

In the US, they’re the most taken care of (by the government).

Maintenance is an often ignored life cycle cost factor. Especially for complex systems, e.g. planes or ships or stuff like that. The longer a system is operated the higher the obsolescence risk gets. In part because the need for spare parts is much lower than during initial production. With life cycles for individual components getting shorter keeping the cost effective mass production up is not worth it. And then system get really expensive to operate. Militaries all over the world feel the impacts.

That being said, the extension of maintenance, supply chain and logistics, is even more often ignored. I think modularization is a potential solution in the future, at least foe the defense sector. In civil aerospace the maintenance problem is under tight control, an aircraft that is not flying is just a cost factor. But then there is a lot of competition for civil aircraft maintenance, so single aource suppliers are rarer than for defence.

Bulldoze it and use the concrete for landfill. Every new road project I've seen in California involves building the ramps with reclaimed concrete as fill.

That’s really interesting. The point has been made about individual variance on the big-5 (OCEAN) personality traits, specifically openness and conscientiousness. Those with higher openness are good at starting new businesses or projects, while those with higher conscientiousness are better at running them once they are past the startup phase. The argument goes that, as with business, you need both types of personalities to make society function. But in terms of political and infrastructural projects, getting both styles of thinking interacting in early stages, in a less linear process than we see in startups, would be constructive. This is unfortunately rare. JJane Jacobs comes to mind as a rare thinker who could integrate ideas of perservation/maintenance and renewal/innovation, which is probably why she has been lauded by both hard lefty types as well as market libertarians.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com