Hacker News Reader

Comment by bluGill | Hacker News Reader

Mostly I agree with 2, but be careful not to get so many systems that nothing can get done anymore. Finding that balance is hard.

View on HN

The system in this case for me is usually building a stronger backbone or improving communication and elevating constraints to highly our strengths/weaknesses and capabilities to actually achieve the desired outcome.

I view it as more a single system of constant improvement and understanding ability to execute in the environment. Nothing hurts credibility more than late commms, and missed deadlines due to over commitments.

That, and be careful to avoid a "box-ticking" culture where people rely on systems over independent thought. Also a hard balance.

Mere "box-ticking" in the form of checklists have been shown to greatly cut deaths in clinical/hospital settings. This may or may not apply to your systems.

Doctors would implement self-healing and abolish checklists if they could! Be glad if you don't need a checklist.

The right boxes to check are good. However you have to be careful. A doctor who spends 15 minutes checking boxes before treating a heart attack just killed someone... That doesn't mean the doctor cannot check boxes, just that they need to be break early to treat things. (even here checkboxes will be good - there are things with the same symptoms as a heart attack where heart attack treatment is the worst thing possible - those have a high death rate because they are so rare doctors don't check for them until too late to treat correctly)

Same with pilots.

Checklists are the only reason I ever feel safe to takeoff

According to Atul Gawande that‘s not strictly true as stated. It‘s not the box-ticking itself, it‘s several factors including the decisions about what the list should contain and adjusting the dynamics of the operating team to actually see results.

I'm not against ticking boxes, but a culture that relies on it overly much.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com