@Economister, thanks for the comment. I'll post this rather long response on my site too. I'm interested in having these ideas tested--poke holes, please!
I agree that
1. many processes can be automated,
2. automation gets less expensive over time, and
3. humans are enormously adaptable.
I didn't clearly articulate what I meant by 'some processes', which makes the arguments appear weak.
Impossible Automation: Perhaps a better way to think about this is that some aspects of every process can never be automated.* Error and exception handling are obvious cases. This doesn't mean automation is impossible, or that the 'happy path' process can't be automated. It means that robust, reliable processes should be designed to recover automatically first and with external intervention second. (In my experience, this meshes well with having a security mindset while designing solutions.) For more information on the core ideas, check out the work of Kurt G?del - a genius of the first order(
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Kurt_G%C3%B6del). I'm arguing from G?del's incompleteness theorems, which describe this particularly confusing, disruptive absolute in algorithmic systems.** For an irreverent treatment from lcfr@abstrusegoose.com, see
http://abstrusegoose.com/244; for a slightly rude treatment from Randall Munroe of XKCD.com fame, see
http://xkcd.com/468/; for a year-long read, check out the spectacular G?del Esher Bach, by Hofstadter, perhaps starting at
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/G%C3%B6del,_Escher,_Bach.
Unaffordable Automation: In this case, 'some processes' is a moving target; a process that can not be automated affordably today may be economical tomorrow. But tomorrow there will still be processes that we can't afford to automate. I believe this is consistent because automation leads to new categories of processes (the buzzword is 'emergent'). Consider email as the automation of the snail-mail process. E mail increased the volume and speed of information delivery. In turn, this made managing the flow of emails into a new category of process--which has been automated (with varying success) in several ways.
Incomprehensible Automation *NEW*: Thinking about the last point brings up another limit to automation that I didn't consider before. Some processes can't be automated because we don't know how to do it, or don't have the right tools to do it. As with unaffordable automation, this is a moving target.
Irrational Humans: "Adaptive" and "rational" are different. Humans are incredibly adaptive; we can survive almost anywhere, on almost nothing. It's just that our deeply ingrained assumptions about how rational we are don't reflect how we actually are much of the time. Scientific evidence says otherwise. I think I can actually make a stronger claim, that some processes can not be implemented to achieve desired results -- automation or no -- if they contradict human nature. In this situation, the process or human nature must alter for the results to be achieved. I think there are four categories here:
A. The process implementation fails in that people
- do not follow the process,
- game the process (intentionally use it to achieve unintended results).
In many organizations, project reporting and lessons learned processes fall in this category.
B. The process implementation succeeds, but the results are different from the intended results. Many performance assessment processes, from the collection of metrics to the delivery of reviews, are like this. Bonus pay generally doesn't have the effect we think it does.
C. The process is altered to account for human nature, and may appear to be irrational or wasteful. Many sales processes are like this, including advertising and marketing. The planning, design and implementation phases of getting citizens to ride an automated train fits here.
D. The process implementation succeeds by altering human nature in some way. An example of a cultural alteration to humans is the way the technological world changed human sleep/wake cycles, supported by caffeine and artificial lighting. A biological example is the ability to drink milk as adults is an example of a genetic change to humans that has evolved "through at least four parallel evolutions starting several thousand years ago" (
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=lactose-toleraence).
___
* I use absolute language with some care; I'm trying to not misrepresent the current best-evidence state of knowledge.
** Computers are devices that execute algorithms (programs). Processes with steps executed by humans--with or without automation--are also algorithmic, and subject to G?del's theorems.
