About optimizing and scale

.

There's a curious thing happening when I do thought experiments, trying to optimise things to the best of my knowledge, processing ability (and preferences):

Answers ends up being very concise, clear and elegant when I look at the macro level.

Answers often end up very detailed and non-standardised when I look at the micro level.

This is for the same problem, such as "What should have been done about German anti-tank challenges by early 1942?".

I noticed this pattern repeatedly. 

- - - - -

This leads to a mystery: Which set of answers is actually the better one?

The micro set could be better because it's taking into account details

The macro set could be better because it's taking into account the big picture. 

- - - - -

I do suspect that armed bureaucracies mostly apply the micro approach because top leadership rarely forces elegant, decisive decisions that fit the macro answer pattern. They delegate and lots of subordinates ponder about micro level problems, coming up with many detailed answers.

 

IMO we could look at macro level to devise answers, then take the micro level into account to see whether the answers are feasible. To look at the micro level for more options leads away from standardisation, elegance, simplicity and in the end - it (likely) leads away from efficiency. 

 

This might be part of the answer to why armed bureaucracies fail to standardise vehicles, munitions and even training properly. It may thus in turn be part of the answer why armed bureaucracies have such very high costs.

S O

defence_and_freedom@gmx.de

.