Other industries and some companies being disorganized and inept with technology sounds like a "them" problem tbh.
Again, it sounds like a cop-out, but I like to think in terms of "how can I use technology to maximize self benefit", not "how can I fit myself into existing structures". Machiavellianism pays off, as long as it is employed in its original description in The Prince, not the edgy wide spread idea of it.
I'd put it as "metagaming in real life".
It's actually the "talking to people" part that I find to be the most unproductive. In my case, it basically consists of clarifying redundant logistical problems over and over again for every case. A rigid protocol for submitting, editing, and reviewing work would eliminate the whole need for communication, because the task of keeping everyone on the same page becomes automatic, with the protocol limiting the scope of possible interactions.
For example, one very simple implementation of such a "protocol" is having an index of objects in the warehouse, with their location, count, etc. Instead of asking the warehouse manager where item X is located, what it looks like, etc., you have a simple instruction like "Take item with index A023594 from aisle 5, row 3, box #20. Which reduces the space of communication from the whole real of natural language, to 4 numbers.
It's not about maximizing the amount of communication, but relevant information per amount of data. To me, less communication = more efficiency.
The only problem is that your simplified model has to be synchronized with actual reality, because the moment it doesn't, it's complete chaos lol.>>58768
That is all true, but I think a lot of it can be solved through proper and rigorous standardization. Programming is the one field of engineering that is rife with needless complexity and lack of standards.
A lot of engineers in other fields to work on a task to task basis, like you hire an engineer to work out the structural stability of a certain building, then he moves on to another job, there's less permanent staff, and more contractor work.
But I disagree on the point about being tied to a workplace being good for long term stability. From what I know, the opposite is the case. A lot of enterprise CRUD software becomes an unmanageable mess because a) there is no expectation that another person will work on a particular chunk of the codebase in the foreseeable future, and b) because a lot of programmers will deliberately write unmaintainable code in order to ensure job security.
Every other field seems to be standardized enough for labor to be interchangeable, you don't usually get situations like "oh no, only uncle petya knows how this building's plumbing and electrical wiring works, we can't hire another plumber to fix a leak!".