Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Marginal Gains's avatar

Please don’t take this as criticism of your post. I’m just trying to point out some areas that may warrant deeper consideration. My perspective comes less from reading about these things and more from 25+ years of implementing enterprise-level systems across the financial services, technology, and manufacturing industries, government, and many other environments, mostly in Fortune 50 companies and three major US federal departments. That experience has taught me a lot about the realities behind some of the ideas in your post.

I do think there is a real idea here. Even a partial or imperfect world model of a business could be useful. If AI can make workflows, bottlenecks, exception paths, and parts of operational state more legible, that is already valuable.

Where I hesitate is that the post seems to move very quickly from that modest claim to a much stronger one that is much harder to defend.

A company is not just a set of processes waiting to be mapped into an environment with defined action spaces and evaluation criteria. A great deal of what actually determines how a company works is tacit, political, relational, and historically contingent. It lives in people’s heads, in trust, in fear, in unwritten rules, in informal influence, in who can block what, and in how decisions are really made versus how they are described. Even people who have spent years inside an organization usually understand only part of that reality.

That is why the idea of an “operating partner in software” does not fully work for me. The value of a strong operator is not just that they can observe workflows. It is that, over time, they develop judgment about people, incentives, credibility, conflict, and context. That kind of understanding is not simply unstructured data waiting to be captured. Much of it is only visible through long participation in the organization itself.

I also think the post may understate a second risk: better visibility does not automatically lead to better management. In many cases, it leads to more intervention. If leaders feel they can see the business in real time, they may start reacting to every fluctuation like a trader watching a market. That can create churn, metric gaming, and local optimization rather than better decisions. Sometimes the most valuable output of a model is restraint, not action.

So I agree with the direction in a limited sense: better operational models could absolutely help firms. But the stronger claim — that this can become something like a true-world model of the business across thousands of companies and serve as a substitute for understanding deeply embedded humans — feels overstated to me. The hardest part of a firm is not just operational complexity. It is that firms are social and political systems, and that is exactly the part that resists clean formalization.

Jeff Jefferson's avatar

There is somthing here but I find the same hurdle every other version of "humans will do more meaningful work" In my real life experience the overwhelming majority of people are incapable of high-level, strategetic and analytical work. A huge chuck of the population Struggles to think about two or three layer deep interactions and abstractions. The kind of stuff people are going to need to think about are7 to 12 level deep. And most of us aren't even thinking about the left side of the bell curve. What are they going to do?

33 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?