Well, the philosopher will say that mathematical proof is but one kind. Empirical evidence is another.
Instead, I have a theory, based on observing QA and other control fetishes from the POV of a worker actually creating goods and services - that the people doing the work are the best suited to organise it, because the devil's in the details.
QA applies as much for worker-owned organisations as it does for private capital.
QA the FHI = a cost hurdle to earning the passkey to play with the big boys.
No. As mentioned, organisations should engage in QA even if they are not seeking ISO certification, for the aforementioned reasons.
Now, I am aware that completing complex cooperative tasks requires logistics, strategy, research, foresight and so on,
Good. That's what I was referring to.
Similarly, claims that management enables workers to do their work seem at odds with real world experience of workers doing their work despite the interference of management.
You are confusing the person (managers) with the activity (management), of which I will readily admit there is a very poor correlation in capitalist firms.
In any case, by "death to the key performance indicators" (or ergometrics, as they liked to call it in the Victorian era)
No. KPIs are not at all related to ergometrics. The former are stated objectives which tie to the mission of the organisation, i.e., the reason that it exists. The latter is efficiency of the work conducted, i.e., time and motion studies, which can quite easily be completely contrary to the organisation's mission.
So we end up with some version of the fabled Pentagon simulation of the Vietnam War that informed the generals that they'd already won years before.
Actually, the Pentagon gave very accurate information to the politicians about the Vietnam War (c.f., The Pentagon Papers). It was the politicians that lied to the public about the potential for victory.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2012-03-08 11:43 am (UTC)Well, the philosopher will say that mathematical proof is but one kind. Empirical evidence is another.
Instead, I have a theory, based on observing QA and other control fetishes from the POV of a worker actually creating goods and services - that the people doing the work are the best suited to organise it, because the devil's in the details.
QA applies as much for worker-owned organisations as it does for private capital.
QA the FHI = a cost hurdle to earning the passkey to play with the big boys.
No. As mentioned, organisations should engage in QA even if they are not seeking ISO certification, for the aforementioned reasons.
Now, I am aware that completing complex cooperative tasks requires logistics, strategy, research, foresight and so on,
Good. That's what I was referring to.
Similarly, claims that management enables workers to do their work seem at odds with real world experience of workers doing their work despite the interference of management.
You are confusing the person (managers) with the activity (management), of which I will readily admit there is a very poor correlation in capitalist firms.
In any case, by "death to the key performance indicators" (or ergometrics, as they liked to call it in the Victorian era)
No. KPIs are not at all related to ergometrics. The former are stated objectives which tie to the mission of the organisation, i.e., the reason that it exists. The latter is efficiency of the work conducted, i.e., time and motion studies, which can quite easily be completely contrary to the organisation's mission.
So we end up with some version of the fabled Pentagon simulation of the Vietnam War that informed the generals that they'd already won years before.
Actually, the Pentagon gave very accurate information to the politicians about the Vietnam War (c.f., The Pentagon Papers). It was the politicians that lied to the public about the potential for victory.