Jump to content

Law of triviality

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Goldfndr (talk | contribs) at 18:39, 24 July 2012 (→Related principles and formulations: Wikilinks, completed quote, em dash). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

"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.

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.

  • In the context of programming language design, one encounters Wadler's law, named for computer scientist Philip Wadler.[5] This principle asserts that the bulk of discussion on programming language design centers around syntax (which, for purposes of the argument is considered a solved problem), as opposed to semantics.
  • Sayre's law is a more general principle, which holds (among other formulations) that "In any dispute, the intensity of feeling is inversely proportional to the value of the issues at stake"; many formulations of the principle focus on academia.
  • The Duck technique in corporate programming is an applied example of Parkinson's Law of Triviality: a programmer expects their corporate office to insist on a change to something (anything at all) on every presentation to show that they're participating, so a programmer adds an element they expect corporate to remove on purpose. Quoted from Jeff Atwood's blog, Coding Horror[6]:

This started as a piece of Interplay corporate lore. It was well known that producers (a game industry position, roughly equivalent to PMs) had to make a change to everything that was done. The assumption was that subconsciously they felt that if they didn't, they weren't adding value.

The artist working on the queen animations for Battle Chess was aware of this tendency, and came up with an innovative solution. He did the animations for the queen the way that he felt would be best, with one addition: he gave the queen a pet duck. He animated this duck through all of the queen's animations, had it flapping around the corners. He also took great care to make sure that it never overlapped the "actual" animation.

Eventually, it came time for the producer to review the animation set for the queen. The producer sat down and watched all of the animations. When they were done, he turned to the artist and said, "that looks great. Just one thing—get rid of the duck."

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.
  6. ^ New Programming Jargon, Coding Horror, Accessed 7-20-2012.

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=503988339"