@pluralistic There's some discussion how "management", as in MBA programs, is taught as a set of skills abstracted from any concrete application, and this has led to managers who see their job as telling people who know the concrete specific details that they're wrong.
I wonder if something similar is happening with designers.
@foolishowl @pluralistic Case in point: we're taught how to measure improvements in efficiency. I like efficiency! But their reasoning is that, if you save n hours making k units, that's a saving of (w×n) where w is the worker's hourly wage. It never occurs to them that they're still paying the workers the same amount regardless of what they're doing.
Also the higher managers explicitly told us we should be using CoPilot. I recently got to explain at length how that (doesn't) work.
@Infrapink
Yeah, a better formulation would be
O/k vs
O-n = E/k
Where O is the original number of hours and E is the more efficient time. But their point is after you hit E, yes you are still paying them, but you are paying them for new output. It doesn't mean you send them home.
@CassandraVert More or less my own thoughts. We have to give a presentation the week after next on a real proposal one of us submitted. I'm going to give the orthodox "savings" because it's expected, but I'll also show the number of extra units the workers can make in a[n idealised] month with the time savings, since that's a real, measureable improvement.
(Also we should really used 4-weekly periods instead of Gregorian months, but for some reason managers prefer months).
No, it's just simpler. There's no big sociological research necessary.
In meteorology, seasons are also aligned to months, not equinoxes or the like, simply because it's easier to calculate.
Don't forget that especially in business, laziness is almost always the right answer.