Admin Spotting for Fun and Profit

How far should we take automation?

November 17th, 2008 Posted in General, Linux

It’s a given that the world population is growing. It’s also a given that the world economy is currently slowing.  This overall slowing of the economy is triggering job cuts across many levels of industry, and IT is at the heart of many such trimmings. When IT itself is not being cut, the IT professionals are often tasked with finding ways to make things more efficient or to automate various processes so that other positions can be cut. Just how deep should these cuts go, and should IT professionals get any say in the matter? A speaker from Cisco once said that Linux was the lens through which he found the flaws in his networks.  I believe this metaphor can be carried further, and that IT as a whole exposes more about humanity than we realize.  With this in mind, just how far should we carry our automation endeavors?

Is it acceptable to script system management such that 3 admins are needed instead of 4? Should we automate a line of factory jobs to save the company some money, or increase shareholder profits?  Is making a product cheaper an acceptable reason to eliminate jobs?

How much responsibility does IT have in these actions, and how much responsibility should we take for them? Should we seek out ways to trim down the company and take a ’survival of the fittest’ mentality, or do we seek out a way to preserve the jobs of those around us? Should we question the corporate officers who direct the action, or is our job simply to follow orders and let the company’s leadership decide what’s best?

From automotive plants and wall street offices to the California budget there are examples on both sides of the issue. Where do you stand, and do your actions correspond to your beliefs? I’m genuinely interested in how people feel about this one, so please take a moment and let me know what you think.

  1. 8 Responses to “How far should we take automation?”

  2. By John on Nov 18, 2008

    As far as I’m concerned, automation should be taken as far as it safely and securely can be taken. I fully believe the purpose of automation is to do things that a human shouldn’t have to do, or would get bored doing, with a higher degree of accuracy and efficiency. Some companies will take that as an excuse to downsize, others will take it as an opportunity to have their employees do something more useful than the standard crap that they get bored with and end up making mistakes.

    (I’m slightly biased, as co-founder of a security automation company…)

  3. By Anonymous Reader on Nov 18, 2008

    I personally like the approach from Robert Anton Wilson’s Shroedinger’s Cat Trilogy (fiction), where President Hubbard presented a payoff to each individual who designed himself out of a job. Each individual who created an automated system to replace his position saved his employer money, and received a stipend to compensate him for his job loss. Each individual who was displaced because of this automation received a smaller stipend.

    As a tech support manager, I personally look for ways to reward an employee who creates a system (or even a simple set of scripts) to automate common tasks. Such valuable employees, having relieved themselves of their grunt work, can now be given more suitable duties to help further push the company forward. My support staff may have dwindled by one “seat”, but my overall contributed value has been substantially increased.

    Admittedly, I work for a small company where such initiatives are not discouraged or seen as “threatening” to the status quo. This would never work in a large corporate environment where a mentality of human “resources” implies that employees are simply statistics to be added and dropped on a ledger’s whim.

  4. By Colin on Nov 18, 2008

    I like the question and think it’s one that needs to be asked more often.

    Automation should definetly be used where possible IF it will increase safety or reduce the probability of error. Increased efficiency of material use is also a good reason, ie. to reduce wastage. However I do not think it should be pursued purely to achieve a reduction in staff numbers if it is not truly necessary for the business to survive.

    If it’s not possible to source staff that might be another matter, ie. due to skill shortages. But working towards kicking existing staff out the door is unethical in my honest opinion.

    I’m not a business owner/operator or even in management at this point so maybe I’ve just never had to make hard choices like that. However my goal is to own and operate my own business in the future. I like to think I’d try to offer secure and rewarding employment for anyone I did hire.

  5. By brian on Nov 18, 2008

    If you don’t become more efficient, someone else will, then your whole company will be out of work. Trying to preserve jobs in the way you have mentioned is short-sighted. You need only to look at the US auto industry for proof of this.

    The statement “following orders” seems to indicate that you think those are the only two options. If you look deeper and understand the company, then you should understand why those “orders” have been given. If you don’t, or you think the reasons go against your own morals, then you are probably in the wrong company.

  6. By BenCollver on Nov 18, 2008

    When I code, I would prefer to let the computer do as much of my work as possible, and free my time to do more interesting work. The Jevons Paradox concerns energy, but to some degree I imagine it could also relate to human resources. The numbers neither confirm nor deny this theory. We are orders of magnitude more automated since 1942 but, according to this chart, our unemployment rate is not much different.

    http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat1.pdf

  7. By Edward S. Marshall on Nov 18, 2008

    I’ve been in the driver’s seat as a small business owner, and I’ve done systems administration for someone else, so I can see both perspectives. And both of those perspectives agree wholeheartedly: automation is a good thing.

    I’ve long said that my job is to automate myself out of a job. It’s tongue-in-cheek, because it implies that my job is to simply do grunt-work, and it’s not. My job is to move the company forward using the skills that I have, and can develop.

    If all I bring to the table is the ability to poke at keys on a keyboard, then I deserve to be automated or outsourced out of a job. If, however, I can turn yesterday’s “new idea”, which will eventually become today’s “grunt work”, into tomorrow’s automated process, and repeat that cycle consistently, I’ll always have value.

    But it means you have to keep learning, and you have to keep adjusting your skills to those needed by the marketplace. I welcome the challenge, but I can understand those who might not be able to handle that. For them, I’m afraid, other endeavors beckon.

    http://esm.logic.net/2005/11/23/outsourcing/

  8. By Iain Kay on Nov 23, 2008

    As a server administrator I find there are many tasks I’m repeatedly performing, most of which are painstakingly boring and really warrant automating.
    Creating customers and employee accounts and pre-filling directories in their home directories for example.

    But there is a line. Automated systems without the knowledgable staff to maintain them will fail. Without staff whom actually understand the software there is no way to fix bugs and problems internally, this in turn will incurr more costs long term.

    The jist; automation can be great and can save your time, but use it to replace your talented workers then you’ll soon have problems down the road.

  9. By anon on Nov 24, 2008

    Would you swap spades for spoons to create jobs?

Post a Comment