12 ms·

I work in the field of Data Science and one upsetting reality has started to sink into my mind over the last year. In a business there is top line and bottom l

• dh2022 4y ago
  Cutting costs but bringing no revenue shows as Cost Center on any financial report. Revenue though shows up as Revenue center. Thus this decisions which sometimes are illogical. Sad but true :)
• brutus1213 4y ago
  I understand the top-line bottom-line divide, but I am not fully convinced if the top-line projects are any safer. Wouldn't another reasonable business strategy be to get rid of all new projects, and only focus on operations-as-is during times of economic uncertainty?
  • nemo44x 4y ago
    That would be an extreme action. You do still need to be working with the future in mind. Anything that looks promising to revenue growth in the nearish future should probably continue to be invested in. You may ask those teams to become more scrappy and figure out how to achieve their goals with minimal new investment, especially if the new revenue streams are still a few quarters from coming online.
  • pixl97 4y ago
    That depends if you're about to get ate by your competitions new product
  • jldugger 4y ago
    > Wouldn't another reasonable business strategy be to get rid of all new projects Only if you want to close the company in ten years
  • angry_octet 4y ago
    That's exactly what weak management does. Family management is especially prone to this IME. Cut new investment, cut cost of inputs, labour, quality control. That works as long as you have weak competitors (or a moat) and nothing terrible happens, like high defects. Essentially you're coasting on prior investment. But as soon as something changes in the market you're falling behind. What I've often observed is that new low cost competitors introduce features which are often reserved for high end devices/products due to market segmentation. The dominant player refuses to adapt and hence they lose all their low end market share, the volume of which is necessary to make the whole thing work. Meanwhile new customers start with the lost cost ecosystem. I've seen this happen with e.g. Agilent, or SaaS companies, who charge 10x for something that costs little, like SaML/AD auth. Imagine if NVIDIA had charged for CUDA or considered it a distraction from selling graphics cards. They wouldn't own the HPC/ML space if they had done that.
• nightski 4y ago
  I think this is an insightful assessment. Not everyone in a company can be top line. But I also think there's a lot more opportunity in using statistics/ml/data science in the top line than most companies practice.
  • greesil 4y ago
    But that would lead to accountability...
    • kneebonian 4y ago
      This is the real problem. Visibility is to be abhorred at the top levels because viability brings accountability. How many Dilbert comics are there out there with the punchline being "I don't care what the real numbers are these are what I want the numbers to be" from the PHB There is a large swathe of middle and upper management that gets by due to continually making sure their actual impact is never measured, and they are only a "force multiplier." not that you should do away with middle management, but there are many in middle management who could be done away with, with very marginal loss.
      • angry_octet 4y ago
        OMG the 'Technology Foresight' group, the 'Process Improved Team'. Cross functional synergy! We all know what the problems are and where investment is needed, but management pretends that they don't know so they can have An Initiative to discover it, but not really address it (because e.g. the problem is one they caused with previous poor management).
  • apohn 4y ago
    >But I also think there's a lot more opportunity in using statistics/ml/data science in the top line than most companies practice. I consider myself a fairly honest Data Scientist, in the sense that I like it when I can map what I'm doing to the value it delivers. I know some other great people I've worked with who are like this as well. This is anecdotal, but all of us have hated working with many top line people because there's some really fuzzy mapping from goal to value (since value is realized in the long term), and some of the people are champion bullshitters. I don't need to explain sales people. But marketing, corporate strategy, and even upper product management - they drove us crazy because their standard of being data driven was absolutely not consistent with how we thought about things at all. All of it was because the mapping from project to revenue was over years, not quarters. And it was all projections. Compare this to bottom line people, where the mapping from project to cost savings is on a shorter time frame. The types of personalities this attracts is different. Maybe the growth hacking stuff at software companies is different and you can focus on revenue growth and still connect what you are doing to that. I've never worked in that role so I don't know.
• Karrot_Kream 4y ago
  Yeah I've worked in infrastructure through most of my career wherever such a distinction is available (or when it opens up), and this is a common complaint. Product folks get the most visibility and get kudos and parties for product launches. Meanwhile, the deployment infrastructure staying up is just expected, even though the engineers responsible for it are working hard to keep it up. It affects team morale (infrastructure teams are unrecognized for their hard work) and also has material affects on promotions and compensation as it's harder to justify business impact on these teams. I know folks that left infrastructure teams because of this dynamic.
  • treeman79 4y ago
    Hired into a company. First day on job I find that the entire infrastructure team had quit. It was in a failing state. told them flat out that they are most likely going out of business, but I’ll get it a try. Couple of times owner tried to Ask me when feature X would be delivered. Just told them no. Managers were wise enough to understand they were one pissed tech guy from failure. 3 years of endless late nights to get company back to a good spot with a rebuilt time, new infrastructure. Proper documentation, the works. Finally left after being passed over for promotion to a guy that did nothing, but promised the world. (He never delivered) Took me a couple years to recover from that job. I don’t work late nights anymore. If company doesn’t care to invest in infra, I look elsewhere.
    • anonreeeeplor 4y ago
      These lessons are just brutal. If you are high in EQ and vaguely likable you can substitute for technical skill or hard work. I had a colleague who was like a golden retriever and lacking in all talent. Everyone loved him. He never got anything important done and always worked on superficial shiny objects. He was basically untouchable. Being optimistic and having no talent is a huge advantage. The hard working workhorse industrious person always griping about how broken everything is: Can’t wait to get rid of you. Don’t do great work for morons. All of the collective results of these brutal lessons for me has been to become ultra cautious about where and who I work for and to try to do a much better job reading the room and analyzing people. If you are an Aspergers person, this is super hard. I now do my best to get multiple second opinions about the situation because I learned my personal judgement and evaluation was nearly always wrong.
• higeorge13 4y ago
  Yeah that’s especially unfortunately true for data science and data engineering teams in companies where ml or data are not the core business but nice-to-have. They are usually the first ones from engineering being axed in times of lay offs.
  • WorldMaker 4y ago
    Even for companies that have ML and/or Data in the core business. I think few would argue Meta in this specific layoff example doesn't have data as a core business. (And those few are probably the ones drinking the "metaverse Kool-Aid" and thinking the pivot away from data siloes is already complete to some sort of VR scape where data somehow doesn't matter or doesn't exist, that Meta still hasn't actually convinced consumers to buy or figured out how to build. They finally figured out "legs", pivot complete I guess?).
• serverholic 4y ago
  This is one of the reasons why I think making the workplace Democratic is a good idea. The workers have a better idea of what is important than the management.
  • qbasic_forever 4y ago
    Incorporate as a worker cooperative and not a corporation beholden to shareholders.
• abakker 4y ago
  Cutting costs is always a marginal thing, because businesses tend to value growth. Oversimplification: If you have a 50% margin business, the value of one more dollar of revenue is $.50. If you cut costs and change the margin to 55%, then you've added only $.05 of revenue to that additional dollar. Now, a sane person will look at the improvements to margin across the whole business and still want to make those improvements because in aggregate, they add up, BUT, you cannot improve margin forever as a strategy. Eventually, hard limits come up and the incremental gains shrink and shrink. At that point, growth dominates. Most mature businesses need revenue growth much more than they need marginal internal gains, especially because as businesses get bigger, marginal gains tend to apply to more limited segments of the business. E.g. improving one product is marginal and applies to only the sales associated with that product. I think the claim that data science is about moving the bottom line is right, but I think the other way of thinking about this is that Project/Consulting is probably a more relevant way for companies to buy these skills than Salary. Many companies can see the value in an incremental move in the bottom line, but most companies don't have a sufficiently large problem space to worry about paying a continuous cost to focus on this. I've seen a lot of big companies say that they need these skills, but also believe they can't attract talent because they wouldn't be able to keep a data scientist busy.
  • Karrot_Kream 4y ago
    > Eventually, hard limits come up and the incremental gains shrink and shrink. At that point, growth dominates. The trick is understanding where the hard limits are. I've noticed that upper leadership tends to be pessimistic about these hard limits (they come quickly) and engineers on these teams tend to be optimistic (there's a lot of fat/cost to cut so the hard limits are quite far down.) Now naturally, the engineers on these teams have a vested interest in being optimistic, as their team charter is based around their work. But I've seen this conflict play out in many organizational situations and I'm not sure this interplay between upper leadership and engineering about these margins is illuminating for the business.
  • a4isms 4y ago
    I've been a part of this argument before. I have another, additional perspective on why growth is more important than cost-cutting in many cases. If there are costs to be cut, you can cut them today, you can cut them tomorrow, they're right there and eventually, you can hire someone/buy something to cut those costs. But growth is a tricky thing. If you're in a land grab market and you cut your costs at the expense of growth, you may find that you lost your chance to grow, because the market is now dominated by other people. For people with this mentality, they expect in the long term to cut costs, but only after growth has slowed for reasons out of their control, e.g. the makret is stabilizing and has already chosen the #1 big gorilla, the #2 little gorilla, and numbers #3 though #100 small monkeys picking up scraps.
• draw_down 4y ago
• bravetraveler 4y ago
  This is a running joke for every systems administration/operations job I've had A common theme for commiserating, the only investment we get are complaints Make it work again with what you had or we have problems, must avoid OpEx at any cost
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• a4isms 4y ago
  > It's the same thing as people say about fires. When you put out a fire you are a hero. When you prevent the fire in the first place, everybody thinks it's business as usual and nobody understands why you are needed. I got a dose of very cold water about this thirty years ago when I was building payware that improved developer productivity. I gave a presentation about its ROI, and afterwards, a developer walked up to me and gave me some feedback that none of the business-types had articulated: Products are either vitamins or painkillers. People buy painkillers, because they're in pain. People postpone vitamins, because nothing is wrong and the benefits are always "later." I didn't 100% change what I chose to build over the years, but from that time to today, I have worked on always spinning what I sell as an antidote to a customer's pain point, rather than as an investment they make to pay off eventually. p.s. I don't know where that dev got the "vitamin/painkiller" metaphor, but it's sticky!
  • dathinab 4y ago
    Ironically this quote also show how broken the US is: It's normal to take pain killers. It should not be. It should be a last resort. You should take what fixes the problem and give your body time to heal not take pain killers and pretend nothing is wrong. Pain killers are addicting, can have an increasingly reduced effect, can have a bunch of side effects and can make the end result much worse by not healing wounds (metaphorically) when they are still easy to heal(1). (1): Through sometimes they can also help you healing by preventing you from doing pain-caused bad actions, like setting down your food in a bad angle. EDIT: Just to be clear I mean pain killers for a "normal live" situation, not in context of you lying in a hospital bed or having extrema healthy issue which can't be fixed/heal anytime shortly.
    • nemothekid 4y ago
      >Ironically this quote also show how broken the US is: It's normal to take pain killers. I've heard this metaphor before, by a VC, and it was medicine vs vitamins.
      • StillBored 4y ago
• kenjackson 4y ago
  A very simple question that I've had to ask is "what likely happens if we cut this group?" then "what's the 'likely' worst case if we cut this group?" That problem with Eric's group and most Data Science teams is that the company continues to move along. There is some long-term cost, but there are likely teams where there are severe short-term ramifications if they are cut. E.g., imagine if Windows cut their servicing team (snarkiness aside).
  • angry_octet 4y ago
    It's a failure of the data science team management that they didn't make themselves a front line capability. It is easy for OR (Operations Research) to explain their business value, any DS team that only stays at the tail end of building capability is liable to be cut (or under invested). For DS it might mean being more on the market research / customer requirements / subscriber churn side, instead of being on the back end of services improvement / risk reduction. Be the thing that customers are asking about, that brings new customers.
• MattGaiser 4y ago
  A friend had a job where a team there just let things fail rather than prevent fires. Lots of raises and praise for literally not doing their jobs.
  • midoridensha 4y ago
    It sounds like they did their jobs exactly the way management wanted them to do their jobs. The proof is that they received lots of praise and raises.
• andrewflnr 4y ago
  It's tricky, because there's genuine uncertainty about whether you have prevented a fire, or just wasted some time and maybe added some overhead. Even people who understand a system deeply can have reasonable disagreements about whether a preventative measure is worthwhile. Executives whose only interaction with the system is feeding it money have almost no chance of figuring it out in the face of any amount of conflicting info. And of course a mixture of natural human optimism, aka blithe disregard of danger, and having their salary depend on believing there are easy things to cut, makes it quite difficult for them to believe in any particular instance of a fire prevented. I hope it's clear that I don't mean to excuse them for giving up. It's hugely destructive both for decision makers and everyone around them. I just want to show that the problem is substantially harder than "just reward preventing fires already".
• substation13 4y ago
  The potential gains from cost saving is always capped at total cost. The potential gains from increasing revenue are (typically) much larger.
  • acdha 4y ago
    Also cost savings has a hard, well known upper bound but revenue growth is speculative with many opportunities for pleasant fantasy. Business leaders love the idea of being the visionary who takes a big gamble and makes it work. Facebook is an example of where that breaks down: there isn’t an easy way to grow that much larger so they would likely see greater return from cost savings than they are likely to make from VR, but after a couple decades of thinking of themselves as this incredibly innovative tech company it’s hard to accept that they’re stable as an ad company.
  • TigeriusKirk 4y ago
    There's also cost savings that are numbers shuffling on a spreadsheet and then there's cost savings that are actually less money leaving the corporate accounts.