Jump to content

Law of triviality: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
~~~~ put quotes around "atomic reactor" to make clear this is what Parkinson called it and added clarification on colour. See talk
~~~~ Technical correction - see the book
Line 20: Line 20:
==When Governance Meetings Devolve into 2-cents Worth==
==When Governance Meetings Devolve into 2-cents Worth==


In the 3rd chapter - ''High Finance or The Point of Vanishing Interest'' - Parkinson writes about board meetings. In it three items are on the agenda. The first is the signing of a $10 million (1957 dollars) contract to build "an atomic reactor" [sic], the second a proposal to build a $2,350 bicycle shed for the clerical staff and the third proposes $57 a year to supply refreshments for the Joint Welfare Committee. The $10 million number is too big and too technical, and it passes in 2.5 minutes. The bicycle shed is a subject understood by the board, and the dollar amount within their life experience, so Mr. Softleigh says that an aluminium roof is too expensive and they should use asbestos. Mr. Holdfast wants galvanized iron. Mr. Daring questions the need for the shed at all. Mr. Holdfast disagrees. Parkinson then writes "''The debate is fairly launched. A sum of $2,350 is well within everybody's comprehension. Everyone can visualize a bicycle shed. Discussion goes on, therefore, for forty-five minutes, with the possible result of saving some $300. Members at length sit back with a feeling of accomplishment.''" Parkinson then described the third agenda item, writing "''There may be members of the committee who might fail to distinguish between asbestos and galvanized iron, but every man there knows about coffee - what it is, how it should be made, where it should be bought - and whether indeed it should be bought at all. This item on the agenda will occupy the members for an hour and a quarter, and they will end by asking the Secretary to procure further information, leaving the matter to be decided at the next meeting.''"<ref>''Parkinson's Law - and other studies in administration'' by C. Northcote Parkinson, Houghton Mifflin Company Boston, third edition 1957 Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 57-9981 pages 29-30</ref>
In the 3rd chapter - ''High Finance or The Point of Vanishing Interest'' - Parkinson writes about a finance committee meeting. In it three items are on the agenda. The first is the signing of a $10 million (1957 dollars) contract to build "an atomic reactor" [sic], the second a proposal to build a $2,350 bicycle shed for the clerical staff and the third proposes $57 a year to supply refreshments for the Joint Welfare Committee. The $10 million number is too big and too technical, and it passes in 2.5 minutes. The bicycle shed is a subject understood by the board, and the dollar amount within their life experience, so Mr. Softleigh says that an aluminium roof is too expensive and they should use asbestos. Mr. Holdfast wants galvanized iron. Mr. Daring questions the need for the shed at all. Mr. Holdfast disagrees. Parkinson then writes "''The debate is fairly launched. A sum of $2,350 is well within everybody's comprehension. Everyone can visualize a bicycle shed. Discussion goes on, therefore, for forty-five minutes, with the possible result of saving some $300. Members at length sit back with a feeling of accomplishment.''" Parkinson then described the third agenda item, writing "''There may be members of the committee who might fail to distinguish between asbestos and galvanized iron, but every man there knows about coffee - what it is, how it should be made, where it should be bought - and whether indeed it should be bought at all. This item on the agenda will occupy the members for an hour and a quarter, and they will end by asking the Secretary to procure further information, leaving the matter to be decided at the next meeting.''"<ref>''Parkinson's Law - and other studies in administration'' by C. Northcote Parkinson, Houghton Mifflin Company Boston, third edition 1957 Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 57-9981 pages 29-30</ref>


== Related principles and formulations ==
== Related principles and formulations ==

Revision as of 11:34, 8 July 2012

"Bicycle shed" and "Bike shed" redirect here. For the physical structure, see Shed.

Parkinson's Law of Triviality, also known as bikeshedding or the bicycle-shed example, is C. Northcote Parkinson's 1957 argument that organizations give disproportionate weight to trivial issues. Parkinson demonstrated this by contrasting the triviality of the cost of building a bike shed in contrast to an "atomic reactor" [sic]. Later, Poul-Henning Kamp applied the law to software development and introduced the colour of the bike shed as the proverbial trivial detail receiving disproportionate attention. Note that Parkinson did not write about colour. Colour is aesthetic, whereas the governance decisions on what sort of material to use for a roof has cost and durability implications that are appropriate for a board. Parkinson's point was that the complex, expensive contract got far less debate because it was outside the comfort zone, whereas the debate on the bike shed was an area where several members felt they knew enough to talk. Thus, the Kamp application of the law, while relevant to his concerns, may be misleading for an understanding of Parkinson's point.

Argument

First mentioned in C. Northcote Parkinson's 1957 book Parkinson's law, and other studies in administration,[1] the concept is presented in more depth in Parkinson's spoof of management, Parkinson's law.[2] Parkinson dramatizes his Law of Triviality with a committee's deliberations on an "atomic reactor", contrasting it to deliberation on a bicycle shed. As he put it, "The time spent on any item of the agenda will be in inverse proportion to the sum involved." A reactor is used because it is so vastly expensive and complicated that an average person cannot understand it, so one assumes that those that work on it understand it. On the other hand, everyone can visualize a bicycle shed, so planning one can result in endless discussions because everyone involved wants to add a touch and show personal contribution. [3]

When Governance Meetings Devolve into 2-cents Worth

In the 3rd chapter - High Finance or The Point of Vanishing Interest - Parkinson writes about a finance committee meeting. In it three items are on the agenda. The first is the signing of a $10 million (1957 dollars) contract to build "an atomic reactor" [sic], the second a proposal to build a $2,350 bicycle shed for the clerical staff and the third proposes $57 a year to supply refreshments for the Joint Welfare Committee. The $10 million number is too big and too technical, and it passes in 2.5 minutes. The bicycle shed is a subject understood by the board, and the dollar amount within their life experience, so Mr. Softleigh says that an aluminium roof is too expensive and they should use asbestos. Mr. Holdfast wants galvanized iron. Mr. Daring questions the need for the shed at all. Mr. Holdfast disagrees. Parkinson then writes "The debate is fairly launched. A sum of $2,350 is well within everybody's comprehension. Everyone can visualize a bicycle shed. Discussion goes on, therefore, for forty-five minutes, with the possible result of saving some $300. Members at length sit back with a feeling of accomplishment." Parkinson then described the third agenda item, writing "There may be members of the committee who might fail to distinguish between asbestos and galvanized iron, but every man there knows about coffee - what it is, how it should be made, where it should be bought - and whether indeed it should be bought at all. This item on the agenda will occupy the members for an hour and a quarter, and they will end by asking the Secretary to procure further information, leaving the matter to be decided at the next meeting."[4]

There are several other principles, well known in specific problem domains, which express a similar sentiment.

References

  1. ^ C. Northcote Parkinson, Parkinson's law, and other studies in administration, Houghton Mifflin, 1956, ASIN: B000IMYTIO, (approx. p. 23)
  2. ^ Parkinson's Law, C. Northcote Parkinson, pp. 24-32
  3. ^ Donelson R. Forsyth (2009). Group Dynamics (5th ed.). Cengage Learning. p. 317. ISBN 978-0-495-59952-4.
  4. ^ Parkinson's Law - and other studies in administration by C. Northcote Parkinson, Houghton Mifflin Company Boston, third edition 1957 Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 57-9981 pages 29-30
  5. ^ "Wadler's Law". HaskellWiki. Retrieved 12 May 2011.

Further reading

  • Karl Fogel, Producing Open Source Software: How to Run a Successful Free Software Project, O'Reilly, 2005, ISBN 0-596-00759-0, "Bikeshed Effect" pp. 135, 261-268 (also online)
  • Grace Budrys, Planning for the nation's health: a study of twentieth-century developments in the United States, Greenwood Press, 1986, ISBN 0-313-25348-X, p. 81 (see extract at Google Books)
  • Bob Burton et al., Nuclear Power, Pollution and Politics, Routledge, 1990, ISBN 0-415-03065-X, p. ix (see extract at Google Books)
  • Darren Chamberlain et al., Perl Template Toolkit, O'Reilly, 2004, ISBN 0-596-00476-1, p. 412 (see extract at Google Books)
  • Donelson R. Forsyth, Group Dynamics, Brooks/Cole, 1990, ISBN 0-534-08010-3, p. 289 (see extract at Google Books)
  • Henry Bosch, The Director at Risk: Accountability in the Boardroom, Allen & Unwin, 1995, ISBN 0-7299-0325-7, p. 92 (see extract at Google Books)
  • Brian Clegg, Crash Course in Personal Development, Kogan Page, 2002, ISBN 0-7494-3832-0, p. 3 (see extract at Google Books)
  • Richard M. Hodgetts, Management: Theory, Process, and Practice, Saunders, 1979, ISBN 0-7216-4714-6, p. 115 (see extract at Google Books)
  • Journal, v. 37-38 1975-1980, Chartered Institute of Transport, p. 187 (see extract at Google Books)
  • Russell D. Archibald, Managing High-Technology Programs and Projects, John Wiley and Sons, 2003, ISBN 0-471-26557-8, p. 37 (see extract at Google Books)
  • Kishor Bhagwati, Managing Safety: A Guide for Executives, Wiley-VCH, 2007, ISBN 3-527-60959-8, p. 54 (see extract at Google Books)
  • Jan Pen, Harmony and Conflict in Modern Society, McGraw-Hill, 1966 p. 195 (see extract at Google Books)
  • Derek Salman Pugh et al., Great Writers on Organizations, Dartmouth, 1993, ISBN 1-85521-383-4, p. 116 (see extract at Google Books)
  • The Federal Accountant v. 13 (9/63-6/64), Association of Government Accountants, Federal Government Accountants Association, Cornell University Graduate School of Business and Public Administration, p. 16 (see extract at Google Books)
  • Al Kelly, How to Make Your Life Easier at Work, McGraw-Hill, 1988, ISBN 0-07-034015-3, p. 127 (see extract at Google Books)
  • Henry Mintzberg, Power in and Around Organizations: Dynamic Techniques of Winning, Prentice-Hall, 1983, ISBN 0-13-686857-6, p. 75 (see extract at Google Books)
  • The Building Services Engineer v.40 1972-1973, Institution of Heating and Ventilating Engineers (Great Britain), Chartered Institution of Building Services (see extract at Google Books)
  • Charles Hampden-Turner, Gentlemen and Tradesmen: The Values of Economic Catastrophe, Routledge, 1983, ISBN 0-7100-9579-1, p. 151 (see extract at Google Books)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Law_of_triviality&oldid=501230425"