Showing posts with label efficiency. Show all posts
Showing posts with label efficiency. Show all posts

Tuesday, July 21, 2020

What if we don't reconstruct an "efficient" economy?

I have ranted, sometimes nearly hysterically, against the primacy of efficiency.  As I wrote in this post a while ago, even as an undergrad, and definitely in graduate school, I had an intuitive understanding that there was something wrong with the pursuit of efficiency.  After all, if I had worshiped efficiency, I would have then stayed in engineering, which is about making "things" less inefficient.

Years have gone by.  Heck, it has been decades.  I have only become even more of a efficiency-hater.  Especially in the world of higher education, for which I often quote Leon Botstein:
No matter the outcome of such a conversation, a very important point is that we must make clear that the university will never be an efficient institution. A university is, by definition, inefficient. If one wants a great university, one has to put up with “wasted” time, unproductivity, seeming leisure.
However, whether it is in higher education, or by individuals who want to manically multitask, there is a huge worship at the feet of efficiency.  If only people would understand that efficiency is more satan than god!

The COVID-19 life is a context in which we could engage in discussions on efficiency.  Right?
Efficiency means getting the most “bang for your buck”, the most benefit for every pound spent. Any other course of action is wasteful, surely? But eliminating waste implies eliminating excess capacity, and we now see the consequences of that in health systems worldwide. Our obsession with efficiency, if it means failing to plan for a pandemic or a climate emergency, will cost lives.
Our priority should be resilience, not efficiency. We need to build resilient systems and economies that are explicitly designed to withstand worst-case scenarios – and have a fighting chance of coping with unforeseen disasters too.
Am reminded of an old joke about an auditor who viewed fire engines that the company had as wasted investment because they were rarely used!

If only we would use the coronavirus conditions to rethink efficiency!

Should we focus our energy on rebuilding an economy that was governed by the rules before COVID-19 brought activities to a halt?
What if, instead of going back to work full-time, we decided to work less, buy less, make less, and not fight to raise GDP at any cost?
What if?

Seriously, what if?  Why not think about prosperity without growth?
“Reversing consumerism’s financial and cultural dominance in public and private life is set to be one of the twenty-first century’s most gripping psychological dramas.”
What good is all the wealth when, for instance, four months into a lock down of sorts, and six months since the virus went, ahem, viral, we in the US are yet to develop enough testing capacity and PPE?  Does it not mean that all that wealth is inefficient, when we should have instead invested in "wasteful" resilience?

I suppose I will have lots more time to "waste" on such matters after I am laid off!

Sunday, November 11, 2018

Computers and efficiency: Here's my middle digit!

The curriculum proposal process at my university is now paperless and all electronic.  We upload documents, which are then routed through the process and the personnel ... all in the name of efficiency.

Is it really more efficient?

When it was time for me to submit proposals, I ran into dead ends, one after another.  And every time I had to email two people, who then spent time fixing the problems.

Another colleague wrote to me about his experience:
I was just about to email you that any frustration in my last email isn't directed one bit towards you but rather to this new "more efficient" process. What used to take me five minutes of behind the scenes paperwork will now take 30 mins of emailing and portal submission, plus waiting on the CC to meet etc. And that's going to be true for every dang term going forward. You and I both like reading articles about automation and the future of work, and this new process reminds me that just because a computer process can be programmed doesn't mean it's an improvement.
As if I needed more evidence that "digital" does not always mean more efficient.  I am all set to extend my middle digit to those who claim otherwise ;)

At least my work is not about life and death, which is the case in healthcare.  Atul Gawande writes about this in "Why Doctors Hate Their Computers."
Something’s gone terribly wrong. Doctors are among the most technology-avid people in society; computerization has simplified tasks in many industries. Yet somehow we’ve reached a point where people in the medical profession actively, viscerally, volubly hate their computers.
Welcome to the club, Dr. Gawande!
Questions that doctors had routinely skipped now stopped them short, with “field required” alerts. A simple request might now involve filling out a detailed form that took away precious minutes of time with patients.
Doesn't this sound similar to the experiences I described about the curriculum process at my university?

Gawande talked to others, like Susan Sadoughi, who is a primary care physician.  What was her experience?
Early on, she recognized that technology could contribute to streamlining care. She joined a committee overseeing updates of a home-built electronic-medical-record system we used to rely on, helping to customize it for the needs of her fellow primary-care physicians. When she got word of the new system, she was optimistic. Not any longer. She feels that it has made things worse for her and her patients. Before, Sadoughi almost never had to bring tasks home to finish. Now she routinely spends an hour or more on the computer after her children have gone to bed.
Efficiency,my ass!
The software “has created this massive monster of incomprehensibility,” she said, her voice rising. Before she even sets eyes upon a patient, she is already squeezed for time. And at each step along the way the complexity mounts.
“Ordering a mammogram used to be one click,” she said. “Now I spend three extra clicks to put in a diagnosis. When I do a Pap smear, I have eleven clicks. It’s ‘Oh, who did it?’ Why not, by default, think that I did it?” She was almost shouting now. “I’m the one putting the order in. Why is it asking me what date, if the patient is in the office today? When do you think this actually happened? It is incredible!”
Seriously, how and why do people so fervently believe that digital means more efficient?

Gawande reviews the research on computers and productivity and writes that "one of the strongest predictors of burnout was how much time an individual spent tied up doing computer documentation."

This is awful!  And we let this happen!
We can retune and streamline our systems, but we won’t find a magical sweet spot between competing imperatives. We can only insure that people always have the ability to turn away from their screens and see each other, colleague to colleague, clinician to patient, face to face.
Face to face, yes.

Recently, I met with a student who was trying to get transfer credits for a course he had completed elsewhere.  I told him to meet with the person in-charge.  "Email to set up the appointment, but discuss the issue in person," I advised.  He did.

Monday, June 25, 2018

(Be)Rate me!

I teach classes online, too.  Like other institutions of higher education, my university also uses a learning management software to house and deliver the learning materials.

Now, imagine that there are problems with this software and users--especially students--running into problems working with the materials and, therefore, doing the work.  Or, students having an expectation of how sophisticated the software will be and then realizing that it falls way short of their expectations.

Those kind of problems with the software has nothing to do with me as the instructor, right?  But, what if students get pissed off because of the software and end up rating me as a horrible instructor?

Yep, it happens.  More than we would like to.

But, at least I don't get penalized with a pay cut or worse.  In the academic environment, we fully recognize that student evaluations of instructors and classes can be misleading in many different ways.  And, of course, I am tenured!

However, the profit-is-the-only-bottomline private sector couldn't be bothered with the nuances related to evaluations.  The first time I took my car in for a service task, and after it was all done, the agent there said that I will get an email with a link--for customer satisfaction.  She added, "anything less than the highest means that my boss will call me in to talk."

She was not exaggerating.  It is getting awful.  We are now in a highly amped up version of Frederick Taylor and his "scientific management" techniques to improve industrial efficiency.

While Taylorism was in the context of manufacturing, in the post-industrial economy, evaluating the efficiency of service workers is happening in some horribly twisted ways.  Even in the restaurant business.
Ziosks are designed to increase restaurant efficiency by allowing customers to order drinks, appetizers, and desserts, and pay their bill from the table without talking to a server. But, as Bishop soon discovered, they also prompt customers to take a satisfaction survey at the end of every meal, the results of which are turned into a score that’s used to evaluate the server’s performance.
Taylor meets digital data.  And Taylor loves it.  Screw the workers!
Ziosk tablets sit atop dining tables at more than 4,500 restaurants across the United States — including most Chili’s and Olive Gardens, and many TGI Friday’s and Red Robins. Competitor E La Carte’s PrestoPrime tablets are in more than 1,800 restaurants, including most Applebee’s. Tens of thousands of servers are being evaluated based on a tech-driven, data-oriented customer feedback system many say is both inaccurate and unfair.
Heartless bastards!
Ziosk and Presto sit at the nexus of two major consumer trends: the idea that every product, service, piece of content, and interaction, whether encountered online or in real life, should be rated on a scale of one to five, and that these ratings in aggregate become an invaluable dataset, helping managers achieve growth and make money.
Customers have no idea how their ratings are (mis)used.  Here's an example of what happens with when the customer-is-always-right mentality intersects with evaluations, and without any meaningful human understanding of the workers nor the evaluation systems:
“A guest could order a medium-rare burger, and if it's cooked medium, they could rate me a four,” said Mathew. “That's literally not my job. I'm not a cook. I'm a server.” Brittany, who serves at a Chili’s in the Midwest, meanwhile, said customers have given her low Ziosk ratings because of problems with the plumbing in her restaurant.
This.Is.Insane!
Rajat Suri, CEO of the California-based Ziosk competitor Presto, is even more bullish than Baum about the technology: He imagines a future in which tabletop devices deliver customer feedback data to management constantly and instantaneously.
“We think there could be a server leaderboard in the back of house that ranks the servers in real time, based on guest surveys,” he said. “I agree it's going to increase stress. But it will put the emphasis more on performance.”
Whose performance? And is it worth the loss of humanity?
Though the temptation was real, Anna said she could never bring herself to ask for a rating. “You're already serving them,” she said. “You don't want to beg them, 'Please help me keep my job.'”
For the record: I have not been to any restaurant with any of these tabletop tablets. Now that I have read this piece, if ever I find myself in one of these establishments, I will walk away.

Thursday, April 19, 2018

The machines have won :(

Ever since I started thinking on my own, following something that somebody lays down as a rule has been difficult.  I don't want to merely follow orders.

Now, increasingly, it is not humans ordering us what to do and what not to do.  Machines do that. Algorithms are the enforcers.  It scares the bejesus out of me.

It is not that I don't care for the comforts that these machines provide.  It is awesome that. for instance, the heater kicks in automatically at five in the morning and warms up the home before I get out of the bed.  But, I worry that most of us are mindlessly yielding to computers.
As we transfer agency to computers and software, we also begin to cede control over our desires and decisions.
That loss of agency worries me. It has always worried me.  Agency is what I have always urged in my students too.  I have even semi-seriously joked that my view of college education is to make sure we don't create automatons out of students, and that I want to make sure they can think.

But, automatons we are rapidly becoming.
Already, many people have learned to defer to algorithms in choosing which film to watch, which meal to cook, which news to follow, even which person to date. (Why think when you can click?) By ceding such choices to outsiders, we inevitably open ourselves to manipulation. Given that the design and workings of algorithms are almost always hidden from us, it can be difficult if not impossible to know whether the choices being made on our behalf reflect our own interests or those of corporations, governments, and other outside parties.
I feel like it is a lost cause.  The battle, the war, has been lost.  A few of us jumping up and down shouting about these won't matter--most are not even listening to us.  Heck, they don't even know we exist!

I often argue, as I did even yesterday, it is all about making conscious decisions about "the trade-offs inherent in offloading tasks and decisions to computers."  Agency.  " If we don’t accept that responsibility, we risk becoming means to others’ ends."

We humans are becoming more and more like machines. We are becoming robotic, even as robots are getting better and better.  And that means:
it will be increasingly impossible to distinguish between humans and robots because of our machine-like behavior as much as robots’ human-like features. And could this eventually become the norm, with humans spending their entire lives acting like machines?
I am sure that even now many amongst us will fail the “Voight-Kampff test," which in Blade Runner was used to "assesses capacity for empathy, a human facility that even the most intelligent androids lack."  How else can one explain the election of a man completely devoid of empathy as the President of the US!

Monday, April 02, 2018

In the name of efficiency

In graduate school, when I was just about learning to write essays--that was some struggle!--I wanted to write a paper questioning the primacy of efficiency.  I had an intuitive understanding that there was something wrong with the pursuit of efficiency.  After all, if I had worshiped efficiency, I would have then stayed in engineering, which is all about making "things" less inefficient.

The professor, Michael Dear, liked my thesis.  He encouraged me.  But, back in those days, I had difficulty even piecing together a couple of sentences that made sense, leave along a 2,500-word essay. Long story short, I didn't do well! But, hey, I live to tell the tale ;)

One of the efficiency routes that we increasingly encounter is also one that should worry us a lot: Automation.  It is one thing when we employ automation in our personal lives.  But, in a collective decision-making process, automation can be a boon or a disaster depending on what we want it to do.  (Set aside for now the machine learning, which takes these to another level altogether.)

If we go about using automation with an explicit goal to help people, then efficiency helps us.  Like in this context:
Virginia Eubanks says policymakers can look to successful models when implementing an automated system. "In Chicago there's a great system called mRelief," she says. "mRelief basically allows you to sort of ping government programs to see if you might be eligible for them. And then the folks who work for mRelief actually help step you through — either in person or through text — the process of getting all the entitlements that you are eligible for and deserve."
But, such systems are rare.  More common are the kinds that are setup in order to hurt the poor even more!
In Indiana, the governor there signed what eventually became a $1.4 billion contract with a coalition of high-tech companies that included IBM and ACS in an attempt to automate and privatized all of the eligibility processes for the state’s welfare programs. When seen as a question of simple efficiency, I think it makes a lot of sense.
But one of the assumptions that was built into the system was that the relationships between caseworkers—particularly public local case workers and the families that they served—were invitations to collusion and fraud. And that part of making the system more efficient actually lay in breaking the relationship between caseworkers and the families that they develop relationships with and serve. The system was built to replace a casework-based system with a task-based system. So 1,500 public caseworkers were moved into regional call centers far away from their homes.
And rather than carrying a docket of families that they served, they responded to a list of tasks that dropped into a computerized queue. So nobody saw cases through from the beginning to the end. And every time a recipient called the call center, they talked to a new person.  
Guess what happened?  Mistakes can happen in any step along the way, right?  "Any fault, any accident, any mistake was [considered] the fault of the applicant rather than the responsibility of the caseworker."
One million applications were denied in the first three years of the program, a 54 percent increase from the three years before that. And these are really horrifying cases—like an African-American woman in Evansville, Indiana, who missed a recertification appointment because she was in the hospital dying of ovarian cancer. She was kicked off her Medicaid because she missed those appointments.
Technological tools that make us more, ahem, efficient, "are not disrupters so much as they’re amplifiers."
It shouldn’t surprise us when a tool grows out of our existing public assistance system to be primarily punitive. Diversion, moral diagnosis, and punishment are often key goals of our public-service programs. But if you start with a different values orientation—if you start from an orientation that says everyone should get all of the resources they’re eligible for, with a minimum of disruption, and without losing their rights—then you can get a different tool.
Which means, what we are really doing is hiding our real agenda behind the rhetoric of "efficiency."  I wish I could have articulated that in graduate school!
we actually smuggle all of these political decisions, all of these political controversies, all of these moral assumptions, into those tools. Often they actually act to keep us from engaging the deeper problems
Yep, we are systematically making sure that we won't engage with the deeper problems.  We are apparently getting highly efficient in this :(     

Sunday, January 01, 2017

Efficiency making things worse

"I sometimes tell students that whether it is at school or work or home, I have found working smart to be way better than working hard" I told my father.  He agreed. Maybe because it is hard work to argue against ;)

The more I think about whatever I take up, it appears that I approach that asking myself, "what do I want to get out of that?"  And I think I chalk up the steps, which makes life not hard but enjoyable.

This approach seems to leave me with lots of time, during which too I am really working.  Reading and thinking all the time is work that sometimes I wish I did not do that often.  But, the work is enjoyable.

Perhaps because of such a life, I have never had to worry about managing my time.  I suspect that anybody will find lots of spare time--as long as they fully grasp their own respective priorities.  When they do not figure out their priorities, people often turn to technology, without realizing that while a technological tool might help them do something better and faster, the tool by itself will not clarify for them their priorities.  Thus, it does not surprise me anymore that people using a lot of gadgets are often the people who are late to appointments, and seem stressed all the time.  It is not the technology's fault.
And yet the truth is that more often than not, techniques designed to enhance one’s personal productivity seem to exacerbate the very anxieties they were meant to allay.
Yawn; I have been saying this for years!
It’s understandable that we respond to the ratcheting demands of modern life by trying to make ourselves more efficient. But what if all this efficiency just makes things worse?
I have been bothered with the focus on efficiency for a long time.  Right from my graduate school days, as I noted in this post from a while ago.
What is uniquely modern about our fate is that we feel obliged to respond to the pressure of time by making ourselves as efficient as possible – even when doing so fails to bring the promised relief from stress.
I don't ever understand why people feel compelled to do a gazillion things.  These days, it starts right from childhood.  Parents get their kids involved in sports and music and many more activities--all in addition to school.  Kids grow up feeling compelled to do all these, and they are short of time. They feel stressed. They don't have enough sleep; meanwhile, the science is clear about the importance of sleep--for children and for teenagers.  Time management is not the real issue for them.  Kids and their parents ought to be saying, "enough already!"
As the doctrine of efficiency grew entrenched – as the ethos of the market spread to more and more aspects of society, and life became more individualistic – we internalised it. In Taylor’s day, efficiency had been primarily a way to persuade (or bully) other people to do more work in the same amount of time; now it is a regimen that we impose on ourselves.
Yep, we impose on ourselves.  And then we run around complaining about our stress and how we don't have time for a "real life."

If ever we get some free time, then we are screwed up about that too--we think even that ought to be used efficiently!  Whatever happened to the idea that one can simply laze around and be bored if that is what one wants to do?
One of the sneakier pitfalls of an efficiency-based attitude to time is that we start to feel pressured to use our leisure time “productively”, too – an attitude which implies that enjoying leisure for its own sake, which you might have assumed was the whole point of leisure, is somehow not quite enough. And so we find ourselves, for example, travelling to unfamiliar places not for the sheer experience of travel, but in order to add to our mental storehouse of experiences, or to our Instagram feeds. We go walking or running to improve our health, not for the pleasure of movement; we approach the tasks of parenthood with a fixation on the successful future adults we hope to create.
So, at this point, you are perhaps asking yourself, "why are people so worried about efficient use of time?"  The answer is simple--we know our time on this planet is finite. We die at some point.
As the philosopher Thomas Nagel has put it, on any meaningful timescale other than human life itself – that of the planet, say, or the cosmos – “we will all be dead any minute”. No wonder we are so drawn to the problem of how to make better use of our days: if we could solve it, we could avoid the feeling, in Seneca’s words, of finding life at an end just when we were getting ready to live. To die with the sense of nothing left undone: it’s nothing less than the promise of immortality by other means. ...
Personal productivity presents itself as an antidote to busyness when it might better be understood as yet another form of busyness. And as such, it serves the same psychological role that busyness has always served: to keep us sufficiently distracted that we don’t have to ask ourselves potentially terrifying questions about how we are spending our days. “How we labour at our daily work more ardently and thoughtlessly than is necessary to sustain our life because it is even more necessary not to have leisure to stop and think,” wrote Friedrich Nietzsche, in what reads like a foreshadowing of our present circumstances. “Haste is universal because everyone is in flight from himself.”
We are running around because deep down we are running from the very idea of death that we do not want to think about.  On the other hand, if we did not flee from ourselves, we would have a clear priority listing of what we want in life.  And that will give us all the time that we possibly want.  Even to blog like this.

No technological tool can help.
"It’s a people problem. And you can’t fix people.”
Yep, as the elections revealed, you can't fix people!

Tuesday, November 24, 2015

So what if I am inefficient!

In graduate school, when I was just about learning to write essays--boy was that a struggle!--I wanted to write a paper questioning the primacy of efficiency and productivity.  But, back in those days, I had difficulty even piecing together a couple of sentences that made sense, leave along a 2,500-word essay.  I tell ya, no wonder I keep getting those nightmares every once in a while! ;)

I am far from a chop-chop guy; I am always wandering about.  The things that I like are never about efficiency either--from cooking to playing bridge to reading to grading essays to ... I mean, even on the "bike" path, I don't care to bike but prefer to walk.  Biking seems like wanting to rush through the experience.  It is not that I am wandering like a cow on a grassy meadow; I have a plan, of course.

So, where was I?  ;)

Contemporary economic conditions prize efficiency and productivity.  The drive to more and better while being faster. All the speed for what?  Especially when it is even in our personal lives?
If I’m using Google Maps, it’ll quickly alert me when a faster route becomes available. I speed even when I’m not in a hurry, just to see the minutes disappear on my ETA—to see that I’ve saved precious time. The very idea that I’ve “saved time” can give a sensation of pleasure and satisfaction.
Meanwhile, commercials offer quick-and-easy alternatives to any and every cooking, housecleaning, or maintenance job. Dinners get hurriedly prepared in microwaves or crockpots, coffee in Keurigs or even instant packets. Because efficiency—time saved—beckons to us like sirens from every corner.
What the hell do people then use that "saved time" for?
There’s nothing wrong with such desires. But when efficiency becomes an obsession, our lives become a constant, headlong rush. Our obsession with saving time results in no time—at least no time for the sorts of slowness that lead to bursts of intellectual creativity, physical health, and spiritual contemplation.
The ones who "saved time" and are in a rush always seem to be in a rush.  And then there are people like me who seemingly move like sloths but get the job done anyway.  What is with the speed?
 Speed has become the measure of success—faster chips, faster computers, faster networks, faster connectivity, faster news, faster communications, faster transactions, faster deals, faster delivery, faster product cycles, faster brains, faster kids. Why are we so obsessed with speed, and why can’t we break its spell?
Maybe speed is nothing but a fear of being alone.  Wait, let me explain.  In the old days, men and women in the villages were in their group settings.  They talked, laughed, cried, together--essentially wasted time.  That was the life they led.  Now, after the efficiency revolution, we are increasingly by ourselves.
Over time, technological developments have enabled workers to move away from a reliance on colleagues for support and instead trust in a system for getting things done.
Alone at work and at home.  We then don't know what to do with ourselves.  We want to run far away from that loneliness.  But, as much as we run, well, we find that we are alone all over again.  And then we run at even faster speeds!
I often wonder, too, if our obsession with productivity—with “filled time,” in essence—is stemming from a fear of free time. If we’re ever stuck in a moment of silence, we usually turn on the radio or television, grab our phones, or log onto our computers. We have to fill the empty space.
Exactly!

You see how quickly got to this point? ;)