[js8]

Seems basically to be a checklist.

However, I don't think it's a good idea. Checklists are not bad, but they are to be executed by humans.

I think trying to automate an existing human process directly is a mistake. Human processes often have features that only humans can do, such as pattern recognition or adapting to small difference. It's often easier to create a computerized (automated) process from scratch than to try to account for all the edge cases that humans might have to deal with (and do without problems).

(The opposite is also true, processes that computers have no issues with can make trouble for humans. For example, humans have imperfect memory. So if the process asks humans to keep track something for extended periods, it can be difficult.)

[jpitz]

>Checklists are not bad, but they are to be executed by humans.

I disagree. People employ checklists precisely in the situations where it is most critical that every step be executed, in order, as written. The airline industry flies on checklists.

>I think trying to automate an existing human process directly is a mistake. Human processes often have features that only humans can do, such as pattern recognition or adapting to small difference. It's often easier to create a computerized (automated) process from scratch than to try to account for all the edge cases that humans might have to deal with (and do without problems).

Now, you're letting perfect prevent you from ever attempting the good. TFA is explicitly about building a checklist that can morph the automatable steps into automated ones.

[js8]

> People employ checklists precisely in the situations where it is most critical that every step be executed

I am not arguing against checklists per se. At work, I work on (a rather old) software product which also largely runs on checklists. (Various installation and maintenance procedures are described by a checklist.)

> Now, you're letting perfect prevent you from ever attempting the good.

No. I just, based on my experience with checklists, argue that they are often poor starting point. Often they rely on abilities of humans to execute them properly.

For example, the checklist might read "edit this text file and add this and this line after line that is like this". This is difficult to automate correctly - the proper way might be perhaps to generate or keep a correct copy of the text file so automation can pick it up.

Humans are good at adapting checklists for the purpose at hand, computers aren't. That makes (human-oriented) checklists somewhat difficult to automate.

[iainmerrick]

Well, the specific problem it addresses is:

1. We have a tedious manual checklist 2. We’d like it to be fully automated 3. How do we get there from here??

You’re correct to say that if the process had been fully automated from the start it may well have been implemented very differently. But those scripts are hard to write, and basically useless until they’re complete.

Often the only practical way to do this stuff is incremental refinement, where each small step adds a little bit of value.

The trick is figuring out where to begin. I think the suggestion in this post is a wonderful way to get over that first hurdle.

[js8]

You can do automation incrementally, but it's quite a different mindset to automate computer than to write a checklist for humans.

If you try to emulate a person with a checklist, then you will often find it is actually harder to automate, because the steps often rely on human adaptability and common sense.

[iainmerrick]

What other approach do you suggest, then, in the extremely common scenario where you have an existing, tedious yet reliable multi-step manual process, and you’d like to automate it?

[js8]

I think you just have to look at the process and consider why is it being tedious. Is there anything specific humans do? Often there are many small decisions hidden in the checklist.

The second thing I would do would be to make sure that the automation happens in a "clean" environment, or at least, there is a clear boundary. Humans can adapt to changing conditions and have no issues to adapt the checklists where circumstances are a bit different.

IMHO the key part to creating automation is to make sure you operate in environment that you can fully control. You can avoid a lot of trouble with emulating the decisions that humans need to take if you just create environment where the machine doesn't have to make the decisions.

[beachy]

> IMHO the key part to creating automation is to make sure you operate in environment that you can fully control.

This pretty much is the opposite of an employee onboarding environment. Much of the discussion here is about automating things via scripts. A typical large enterprise uses a bunch of HR and related systems that are fairly resistant to automation. If you can automate, it may be a massive saga involving cooperation from the vendor of some arcane software.

e.g there is no concept of a "clean environment" when you are interacting with a benefits system, a payroll system build last century, a manual procedure where Barry downstairs has to cut you an access card, etc. etc.

You can aspire to automate these steps but they are 100 x as hard as running bash scripts on a box. And onboarding new employees does not typically happen often enough to justify the effort.