The 'bento box' guide to the Reshuffle of professional services
What Japanese lunches and present-day Hollywood teach us about the future of the professions
Japanese convenience stores sell millions of bento boxes each day. You’ve probably come across one before.
Most of us see the bento box and appreciate its near-ornamental visual aesthetic. But what’s most interesting about the bento box is not quite visible.
The bento is a collection of constraints that defines the structure of an entire industry behind it.
The box fixes the shape of the meal. Those constraints determine the workflow of the kitchen. And that workflow fixes the architecture of the entire supply chain.
Start with the box first. Its compartments dictate portion sizes and enforce consistency. Every meal must fit the grid.
This forces producers to engineer machinery that can portion ingredients with remarkable precision. Rice dispensers release exactly the right amount and cutters produce identically sized slices. The box’s dimensions determine the logic and parameters of the machines.
These machines, in turn, set production expectations. Farmers standardize produce and seafood suppliers target consistent cuts. Even the chemistry of sauces is stabilized so viscosity doesn’t disrupt portioning equipment.
Those production constraints also show up in logistics. Because bentos are perishable, the system must replenish stock many times per day. Cold-chain trucks are run on fixed schedule loops calibrated to store-level demand. Factories operate in short, intense bursts to prepare batches that match the expected sales by hour, not by day. On the distribution end, convenience stores design their shelves around predictable bento turnover, refreshing inventory multiple times per shift.
The architecture of the entire industry is determined by the constraints imposed by the bento box and its attached workflow. The stability of the bento workflow creates predictability. Predictability allows tighter coordination. Tighter coordination allows higher throughput.
The bento box illustrates how product and workflow constraints eventually determine industry architecture - the underlying structure that defines how work is divided, and how value and control are distributed across an ecosystem.
The ‘bento box’ guide to industry architecture
The surprising lesson of the bento box has important implications for the future of work today.
It shows that industries don’t simply choose their architecture. They are shaped around constraints. If those constraints change, the entire architecture of the industry changes alongside.
Professional services industries, today, are structured around similar constraints. Their workflows look nothing like a bento line, yet they display the same deep interdependence between what happens at the task level and what emerges as industry structure.
The work of a lawyer or auditor is document-centric, sequential, and heavily reliant on human interpretation.
Because humans can only process so much information at a time (the dominant constraint), the industry’s architecture is built around sampling techniques, multi-layered review chains, and periodic cycles to manage those constraints.
Specifically, the industry is structured around four key constraints.
1. Human speed and attention: Work must be done sequentially, step-by-step, with human review, because humans cannot monitor continuous flows of data.
2. Document-based evidence: Information is trapped in documents. Understanding that information requires humans to assess these documents.
3. Sampling and periodicity: These industries rely on episodic reviews in the form of annual audits, yearly underwriting, and periodic inspections.
4. Fragmented, heterogeneous data: Data is scattered across incompatible formats or unstructured documents. Humans do the stitching and translation to make sense of it.
These constraints also dictate industry architecture. There’s a structured cause-and-effect chain that locks in the industry’s architecture:
Regulation defines structure: Because of the constraints inherent to manual reviews and decision-making, regulators advocate fixed workflows and traceability requirements that ensure predictability.
Structure defines business model: Pricing models are anchored to billable hours. This is backed by the organizational pyramid structure, where lower-priced juniors help expand margin.
Business model defines skill/work patterns: Partner economics are structured around leverage i.e. how many juniors each senior could oversee. This produces junior-heavy, manual workflows.
This is a locked system. Rules lock methods, methods lock workflows, workflows lock economics, and economics lock incentives against transformation.
AI removes many of the constraints around which professional services workflows were built, and the moment the workflow changes, the architecture begins to reshuffle.
Dismantling constraints
As I explain in my book Reshuffle, AI doesn’t simply automate or augment existing tasks. That dual framing is a fallacy that distracts us from the bigger shifts. AI removes the constraints that shape today’s workflows.
AI dismantles all four constraints above.
AI removes human speed as a bottleneck
Agents can analyze full datasets instantly, analyze events as they happen, and even decide and act or route decisions and actions to the appropriate stakeholders for further oversight.
AI moves analysis from documents to underlying data
Models extract entities from static documents, map relationships between those entities, and develop a detailed understanding of the domain.
AI eliminates the need for sampling and periodicity
Continuous evaluation makes annual cycles obsolete. Risk and compliance are no longer episodic or reactive, but can be managed continuously and proactively.
AI stitches fragmented data into an integrated view
This enables what I call ‘coordination without consensus’ in Reshuffle. Actors don’t need to align on standards before they start speaking the same language or start seeing a shared view of the system.
Removing these constraints has obvious effects on the nature of the workflow, but it also eventually reorients the entire industry architecture.
Non-linearity enters film-making
To understand how a shift in constraints changes the entire industry architecture, let’s study an example where this has already played out, instead of merely speculating what might happen to professional services.
Traditionally, film editing was built around the physical limitations imposed by celluloid. ‘Film’ was literally ‘cut’. Rearranging sequences meant taping and re-taping. Mistakes were expensive, and redoing edits consumed days.
Because editing was slow, irreversible, and costly, the entire industry formed around that constraint. (I use a similar example of the impact of the word processor on the typists in Reshuffle.)
Then, non-linear editing arrived. Suddenly, cuts were reversible. Footage could be rearranged endlessly.
Films could be made faster on lower budgets. The old constraint of irreversible cuts was gone. With that, the logic of the entire system changed.
Directors no longer held unilateral power. Producers could reshuffle scenes deep into post-production. Junior editors leapfrogged veterans because software fluency mattered more than muscle memory with film. Shooting ratios exploded. Story structures changed as well because infinite rearrangement created new aesthetic possibilities.
Professional services are at a similar moment with AI today.
Law firms, audit firms, insurers, and compliance organizations operated under their own version of physical splicing: human limitations. Humans could review only so fast. Decisions had to be made sequentially. Entire industries grew around these constraints, just as film grew around celluloid.
The impact of AI is poised ot play out similar to the impact of nonlinear editing on filmmaking in the 1990s.
Reshuffling the film industry
So what exactly happened to the film industry?
First, there were the immediate, mechanical consequences. Shooting ratios exploded. Because everything can be rearranged later, directors shoot vastly more footage. Meanwhile, a cut can be reworked dozens of times in a single session.
But these mechanical shifts don’t change the industry architecture; they simply remove the constraint that shaped the craft.
Industry architecture changes once shifts in the workflow shift, where decisions are made and who sits at the new positions of power that emerge.
In movie-making, directors lose their monopoly on the cut because producers can now see and rework edits quickly.
With “fix it in post” becoming viable, production practices change as well. Actors perform with the knowledge that many imperfections can be smoothed later. Cinematographers and shooting crews change how they work as well.
The creative center of gravity moves into post-production.
With that, the role of the editor changes as mastery of software matters more than mastery of celluloid. Apprenticeships and time-based seniority lose power.
Eventually, rapid cuts, non-linear pacing, montage-heavy sequences, and complex structures become common because editors can try dozens of alternatives without cost.
Eventually, as we see with film-making, the entire industrial system changed.
Film editing is today a software discipline, built around version control. Nonlinear workflows also enable distributed editing. Post-production becomes globalized, with specialized hubs emerging - Los Angeles for direction, Vancouver for VFX, Mumbai or Manila for rotoscoping. New power centers emerge as well. VFX houses, post-production studios, and software companies like Avid and Adobe become more influential than equipment manufacturers or film labs.
Removing the physical constraint of film splicing first transformed how editors worked, then reshaped the hierarchy and economics of filmmaking, and finally produced an entirely new industry architecture built around software-driven, globally distributed workflows.
The ideas in this post are based on my book Reshuffle.
Reimagining the nature of work
Alongside the reshuffle in industry architecture and power structures, the very identity of the movie has changed as well.
The shift from linear to nonlinear editing changed the nature of movie-making and storytelling.
When the constraints of a craft change,
the identity of the work changes with them.
In the early 1990s, film editing was still a mechanical art. Rebuilding a sequence was painful. That friction shaped the storytelling of that era with clear continuity, long takes, linear plots, and a relatively conservative approach to structure.
Sure, you could do something more experimental, but every experiment carried a cost.
Nonlinear editing changed the underlying limitations. You could try ten versions of a scene and revert to version three if things went wrong. That elasticity opened the door to new narrative habits.
The mid-90s wave of non-linear and self-reflexive storytelling - think of films like Fight Club or, a little later, Memento - reflected directors jumping to exploit the shift in constraints. Writers and directors now operated in a world where editors could rearrange time in post-production and test strange sequencing structures without destroying ‘film’.
Nonlinear editing made it cheap to experiment with non-linear storytelling.
Fight Club landed with unusual force because nonlinear editing made its fractured narrative structure feel natural rather than jarring. The film could ricochet between timelines, identities, and hallucinations with a fluidity that analog editing could never have supported. It allowed the story’s ‘content’ - the themes of alienation, split selves, and consumer-culture dislocation - to be embodied in the very form of the film.
Fight Club’s cultural impact was, in large part, attributable to the way the narrative felt like the world it described: disordered, unstable, and stitched together from competing realities.
By the late 90s and early 2000s, editing had been further transformed by digital tools that made it feasible to juggle dozens of layers, VFX plates, and micro-cuts. The Matrix exploited this in showing bullet time, slow motion, hard cuts between planes of perception, which would have been far more cumbersome in a purely analog workflow.
A few years later, the Bourne films pushed an opposite style, where fast cutting, and micro-fragments were stitched together as editors could manage hundreds of cuts in a short sequence. The ‘shaky cam’ effect gave a sense of realism in action cinema, shaping audience expectations of how physical conflict should feel on screen.
At the same time, fully digital production pipelines enabled the resurgence of fantasy and sci-fi genres. You can see it starting with The Lord of the Rings trilogy and rolling into the 2010s with the Marvel Cinematic Universe. These were films whose storytelling relied on visual density and visual continuity across dozens of interlocking movies. An ambitious cinematic universe like the MCU depends on an editing culture comfortable working inside massive, interdependent timelines. The core creative act shifts from choosing between a handful of takes to managing an evolving mesh of assets spread over years.
Editing technology also enabled a different narrative style of telling a story that ironically felt unedited. Films like Children of Men, Birdman, and 1917 used long takes and simulated one-shot structures to create immersion and tension. Those feats depended absolutely on digital editing, with hidden transitions and stitching, but the result felt like the opposite of fast cutting.
The editor’s identity changed yet again. The task was no longer to chop scenes into pieces but to hide transitions so well that the audience forgot cuts existed at all.
Today, Netflix’s binge-watching is made possible by the same technology - the ability to manage an evolving mesh of assets across different production timelines. These storytelling styles simply wouldn’t have existed in an era of linear editing. Cliffhangers, cold opens, and cross-episode callbacks are now central tools to sustain the binge and increase ARPU. The unit of narrative shifts from the film to the season, managing attention over hours.
Reimagining the architecture
That’s the real point of what’s happening around us today. AI looks like automation today. But…
The future of industries isn’t just faster, cheaper, better.
It is a reshuffling of the entire architecture.
And an evolution of the identity of the core work that the industry offers.
When a new technology removes foundational constraints, it doesn’t just shave hours off the day. It makes different kinds of work thinkable, then practical, then expected.
The editor still edits but the underlying activity they perform and the universe around it have completely changed.
Once the constraint moves, the identity of the work moves. And once the identity of the work moves, the architecture of the industry follows.
Love it! Keep the great stuff coming. Still the best writer on AI and economics online!
Copied from LinkedIn:
Initially when seeing the picture of the bento box, I thought you were going to talk about how fractional work will be like a bento box: people combining different elements like product management, UX, CX, analytics, social marketing, search marketing, etc to create their own combo of value to offer! The Pianist was shot in reverse order because Adrien Brody had to lose all that weight first and then put it back on... nonlinear thinking in films!