Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I suppose that tools which are painful to use must lower the users' performance.

Why is this not a visible metric for the buyers?




As someone who has used terrible to ok b2b apps my whole career I think people who are not programmers/designers don’t even think along those lines. “So the employee has to click seven times instead of one? Thats what I pay them for” kind of mentality. The only good news is the worst apps seem to die off over like 5 years.


Not only B2B. Also online education. Blackboard, an LMS, comes to mind. It's the kind of software that looks nice in a presentation but it's usability is terrible. Getting to the latest content of a class requires a dozen clics and lots of scrolling.


Christ I despise Blackboard.

And christ I despise Moodle, too: the developer experience working with that back in the early 2010s was horrific.

I'm scarred from working with/on LMSes at this point. SCORM gives me nightmares.


Because executives at Generic BigCo don't understand or care about their employees' productivity.


This is my question: why this disconnect? The employees' productivity should be exactly what puts money into the executives' pockets.

I suppose that halving productivity won't go unnoticed. Why smaller wins like 10% don't matter to them?


> I suppose that halving productivity won't go unnoticed. Why smaller wins like 10% don't matter to them?

Believe it or not, Silicon Valley BigCos are much better at seeing that this matters, and building custom stuff for their employees when necessary. It's not a coincidence that about half of the top 10 companies in the US by market cap are from SV.

From a traditional perspective, Google and Facebook are "just" advertising firms if you see where their revenue comes from; but they have historically done things that go counter to the traditional cubicle farm company like allowing employees more freedom about what to work on, putting in bright colors and such. These things have an effect on productivity, it's just harder to demonstrate a direct relation.


Too much noise frankly, and often actual output, let along profit, has little to do with any individual employees productivity. And most employees are part of a relatively small silo which would require extensive work to really figure out how to make them productive, and if they got more productive, the rest of the organization is likely to tarpit them.

Think of it as an army - infantry may be visible on the ground, but no matter how awesome an individual infantry person is, their transport folks, logistics folks, planning folks, etc. have a far more important role in winning the war. And everyone has to be effective, or that war won’t be won.


People who study the US economy have been asking this for over a decade now

https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2021/article/the-us-productivit...


> I suppose that halving productivity won't go unnoticed.

Perhaps if the halving was instantaneous. Over any substantial period of time? I have my doubts.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: