> For something so core to the business, I'm baffled that they let it get to the point where it was costing $300K per year.
And this, this is the core/true/insightful story the executives will never hear about.
In the world of manufacturing this is known as a gain-sharing plan. Not sure I'd call it common, but it certainly isn't unheard of
- cost of the effort
- probability of success
- trade-offs in the case of success or of failure
- the possibility of only partial success creating an even messier situation than the existing one
Having a way to do the whole thing on a much smaller timescale and budget lets decision makers focus more on those externalities, and also can simplify them. This kind of bit rot is somewhere (often everywhere) in many fast-moving businesses, as a natural consequence of the value tradeoffs we have had up to now. Now there are machines that can speedrun the grunt work of clearing them.
The rebuttals I always get are “I want you working on something that I can’t pay another company for”. I think it sounds good, but in the long run we always end up a budget conversations and head count limits because we spend so much money on external services and software we should just build.
Every company ever has this problem.
But now with AI. The cost of showing the company “yes we can” is so cheap. I worry for companies who have promotable replacements.