[novagameco]

I worked for a large company and started seeing opportunities for automation immediately. I proposed some solutions to my boss, and he told me that he agreed that these tasks could be automated, but that we have 10,000 other tasks that could be automated, and each one takes a few months to get the resources provisioned and also set aside developer (me) time to get it done, which could be spent on other projects.

What was interesting to me was the self-fulfilling prophecy of dysfunction: because there was so much manual process and red tape, the cost of fixing a particular problem is larger than than the benefits (i.e: time spent on the task exceeds time saved by automating it).

But because the tasks do not get automated, the amount of time required to fix things increases bit by bit due to the processes in place. The cost of fixing a task increases marginally every day, and so the cost/benefit ratio increases every day, becoming further justification NOT to fix things. At a certain point you have to look at the bigger picture and recognize that there is a much larger problem in your company than a few excel spreadsheets that could be better automated.

[JohnMakin]

So much feel this and have seen it many times. A complete unwillingness to spend a few hours to save hundreds of hours later, because too much is urgent. It's a little bit like a thrashing OS, too many competing resources so the result is everything slows to a crawl or breaks.

I've clawed my way out of situations like this but it does require some heroics in the beginning and probably longer hours than your role requires. I am the kind of person that will ask to slow a project down or delay it if it means we get a chance to do things correctly and in a maintainable way, but certain types in management will not really understand enough to completely buy in.

[theideaofcoffee]

I know that feeling all too well. And it's such a hard truth that devoting just a little time, letting some projects slip just a bit, to fixing those systemic problems could make lots of others go away, it's just next to impossible to get people to want to change. I've found because people don't want to, they want to keep doing what they're doing and are scared of anything new because that may mean either they'd have to retrain, or more pathologically, that their position is threatened.

It all comes down to the people. The right people can make all the difference in something like that, the wrong people make it miserable for the rest.