Kudos to Engineering

... and to all who know their stuff.

---

We looked at two banes, earlier, and will have to get back to a long issue list related to computation (which is behind social media and much more, if you need to ask) and its inherent problems which seem to be ignored in the breakneck rush to profits (say, the social media'd types).

Before that review, let's pat the back of the engineers who got the 787 back into the air. Their concerted effort demonstrates what we have said earlier (needs to be updated) and leads to discussion of differences between engineering and business (silliness, many times).

In short, it's this:

• Engineers can do (engineering does). But, since they work with real things, they bump up against nature (who is the ultimate rule). Of course, this is a gross generalization, yet needs to be understood. As, many computer engineers (say, software) deal with things that are harder to grasp and to measure (whence comes the problems). But, we'll account for that. The 787 battery problems dealt with material, systems, and more. That the root cause for the fires (see this blog) was not determined is a telling factor (..., as, in, we all know, except for *CEO*s and stupid investors  and children that we do not have 20-20 foresight; guess what? we do not have 20-20 hindsight, either). 



Comic take on the relationship

• Business (especially finance) brags. And then, cooks (has to cook) the books in order to make its numbers (and to look good, a daily bit of activity covered widely by TV and other media). Tongues wag, in other words (that loud nuisance of the talking heads). Of course, again, a gross generalization. As, good business has to master matter and more. And, systems are essential, even if the *CEO*s (the modern counterpart of the feudal Lord) think that it all begins and ends with their little egos. Too, there are those who see how sustainable approaches need to be socially fluent (metaphors beyond the jungle). And, business ought to work with engineering to promote sustainable ways and means. 

As an aside, there are a couple of categories of a major sort to keep in mind: human and artificial. In both cases, we have entities (objects and properties, say) and milieus. Then, we have system-level things to look at. That is, we have human-based things, and the more modern things of system origin. Our real focus needs to be the overlap. We know (or think that we know) a lot more about people, having evolved jointly with the bunch (haven't found out how to live peacefully, though). Yet, there is a whole lot about humans that is unknown (for various reasons).

Do we know systems, especially those based upon computational prowess? Ah. 'Tis a whole new world which was understood more prior to the explosion of silly applications (yes, we'll have to go back to the 1930s and so) than it is now. Yes, we'll step back a time or two to think of people like Alan whose 100th was last year.

---

Note: *CEO*? Why, of course, the "star" CEO (MVP, anyone?) who, in many cases, is another of the many banes.

Remarks:

04/27/2013 -- We will be using quasi-empiricism, once again.

Modified: 04/27/2013

Kudos to engineers and to others who know

...

Remarks:

04/27/2013 -- Moved: http://7-oops-7.blogspot.com/2013/04/kudos-to-engineering.html

Modified: 04/27/2013

Two modern banes

A controversy that is boiling with a company of which I have some knowledge (as an outsider) made me think about the modern ways that lead to oops (getting back to the theme of this blog). One can pinpoint exercises related to WWII (or a little later) as the chief starting point for some of these things. There are two in particular with which we can being, namely optimization and lazy evaluation.

• optimization - Being lazy (next bullet), let me say that it's part of applied mathematics, okay? There is much to discuss here, but let's talk Operations Research, as a field. All sorts of system (generic sense, not computational, though there is overlap) problems arose in WWII. Techniques to handle these evolved into the discipline of ORA (an analyst position in the field). What is the bane? As with anything, how well a model (being used lazily to handle a lot, again, okay?) can really fit the world (or predict accurately) depends upon many things. The crux here, though, is that the techniques are taught in school, now. And, that leads to misuse (a major failing about which we ought to care deeply). One really stinking method nowadays is computational modeling overlaid on human activity driving humans as if they were automaton. If you must, recall Steve Jobs' company little thing of suicides by workers who figured out that they had entered hell (albeit, why would a westerner care, it's in the orient?). Also, if you must, let me take you around to show you the same thing in good old America. Methinks (err, knows), some flavor of this reeks from the above-mentioned controversy. You see, many times there was an optimization scheme behind a decision process using incomplete data; the many times can be observed in noting mismatches between what was declared doable and actual accomplishment. It's one thing for you to brag from an armchair (nod to the Madness) about what you can do; it's another to have someone tell you that you ought to be able to do something (without them demonstrating such). "As if by magic" is how some techies have laughed off expectations that were way beyond realizable.  
• lazy evaluation - Look. Watson of IBM, and others, have touted laziness as being the parent of invention, if you would. Figure out an easier way to do something is the usual way to look at it. In computation, AI (as in borgs, et al) made use of this technique. Heck, the web is full of it. Ever notice an iterative push down of data off the web. That is, get back quickly with a little stuff and fill in as things progress. Too, large amounts of data can be partitioned out so as to not be too burdensome. In terms of the above bullet, one can overcome states that are insolvable (computationally beyond any scope that exists now) by using lazy techniques. You, the reader, do it all the time when you rely on other than your own knowledge (look, this applies to the issues of scientism, where everyone has their favorite expert to quote (err, misquote) or makes claims way beyond the bounds of their knowledge). In problem resolution, the lazy approach can help resolve issues, yet it can bring some other issues to the fore. Again, the bane? We have to be lazy (one way to avoid/break analysis paralysis). Yet, we ought to be smart about it. So, let's talk looking forward. It's more rational to talk about re-doing something that has already been done than it is to make prognostications prior to really knowing. Now wait! That applies to data-driven processes, to boot. Why? Extrapolation and false notions of equivalence are a couple of things to discuss here.  

This post is brief, intentionally lazy. But, the theme will continue (actually, we saw it before, quite a bit, as there are many aspects to it, such as out-housing). There are many such banes as these two. Yet, are we teaching the next generation? Oh, like Zuck, and Sandberg, they may not need to know. The problem? As we go along with greater technological prowess, the ties that bind are becoming more problematic.

Remarks:

04/21/2013 -- The view from Saturday.

Modified: 04/21/2013

Zeno, in the modern context

It's common knowledge that the modern world knows things through computers. This is true from the most recent phenomena, of noses to smart phones parading as intelligent behavior, to the wide expanses of cosmology's modeling of the heavens and exploration of multi-universes as an explanation, of sorts. In between, we have IRS's use plus business computing, such as design, planning, and a number of other things.

So, where does one go to look at issues related to such knowledge? The ACM is a good start. Say, their Communications of the ACM. Then, we have a whole lot of other folks, such as IEEE, IJCAI, and such.

---

The following is motivated by a viewpoint, expressed by Phillip G. Armour, in the ACM. His article is titled: The Business of Software: How We build Things (in paper, slightly different on-line). There are two things to mention here, though the article ought to be read.

He uses Zeno in talking about what I had called Earned Value. I only used Zeno once (Fedaerated) in several posts on three blogs. Why? I had talked about this with my colleagues on many occasions. It seemed that referencing the guy was more useful in person as then one could get off on the peripatetic issues.

Zeno, Veritas et Falsitas

Why Zeno? He's the guy of the arrow. Or, as the joke goes, the mathematician who doesn't get the girl. So, Phillip asks: why do people guess that they're 95% (or some such number) complete on a task as if they're monotonically approaching, with no end in sight?

Phillip laughs it off. I don't as it was a regular occurrence as we tried to assess completion of a project with lots of people and oodles of modules. Nowadays, it's not an issue (say, with Zuck's stuff) as they can just push out system changes (with a recovery method, hopefully, to use if things go bad) without regard to testing status. This is not true for other parts of the business world, say like the 787 (even a most-specified test plan will still leave room for judgment calls -- we'll get to that).

---

Phillip's use gets me thinking, that I need to bring the topic forward, again.

First, though, a useful exercise would be to gather all of the posts, for each of the blogs, that dealt with the subject of earned value. For each of the blogs, I have a list of posts that include the term. Then, I provide a list of a few of the important posts and the count of posts with the term.

 Fedaerated (18)     7'oops7 (41)     Truth Engineering (20)

Now, for this blog, all but a couple of the posts were in 2009 and before. That sort of indicates the shift to looking at finance. Engineering worries about things like this. Finance seems to have this short-term view of the content of the current day's pocket. That is idiotic, pure and simple.

So, we'll bring this subject up to date and relate it, as it ought to be, to fair value.

A sampling of posts follows:

• Earned value II (Jan 26, 2009) -- Looked at some of the factors that relate to the hardness of the problem. 
• Earned value (Jan 23, 2009) -- Two years in, decided to tackle the definition'l issue that had been ignored from the start in 2007.  
• Here we go again (Jun 24, 2009) -- Tied earned value with its compatriots in the context of planning and managing a project. 
• Middle and out (Jan 29, 2008) -- Management, like Jamie, like top-down in their illusion of being in control (Hey, can they even control themselves? That's more of an open issue than you might believe (or want to accept).) 
• Carts need horses (Nov 2, 2007) -- It looked for a long time as if the tail was wagging the dog. We'll not go into details, at this time, but the whole thing relates to the above bullets (know where you're going, how far you are, etc.), especially the middle out. 

There are a lot more posts to look. We'll get back to that.

---

Phillip used some mathematics to show the problems related to knowing where you were with a project (the managers, like kids, say: are we there, yet?). Nice article.

Remarks:

01/24/2013 -- Article from New York -- The Digital Skeptic: Dreamliner Brings iPhone 'Reliability' to the Skies. With something as complex as the 787, how many operational issues can be expected to crop up (at 35K feet -- rhetorical answer? A bunch.)? A student paper at Uniz of Az looks at 787 outsourcing (see Mahmoodi). Boeing Tech Fellow's cautionary note, on outsourcing (2001 - there was quite a bit of discussion at the 2004 conference in LA, to boot, about matters of technical design -- also, whistle blower?). Related, 787 blog.

01/21/2013 -- WSJ has a nice recap from the beginning. Look at how management kept promising that they would hit a milestone when most figured that they would not. Then, the guy would switch gears. In July 2007, most knew that the shell was empty, yet the claim was for delivery in May 2008 (a mere 11 months later). Then, in October 2007, the message was that they would fly in March 2008. It didn't fly until December 2009. Finally, things quieted. It was obvious that engineers were taking the lead. 

Modified: 01/24/2013

Groundings

Airlines need to protect their customers and their crew, thereby their reputations. Engineers need to be able to work things, as necessary. Marketing? Management? Other players? Such as?

The arm-chair critic, for one. Well, amuse yourself with this blog.

    http://engineermemes.blogspot.ca/

------- later in the day -------

CNN report. Earlier, a Japanese airline, or two, had decided to ground its aircraft. Now, FAA has made a similar decision. We will watch this closely. The hope is to be flying soon.

from CNN report

Aside: We got started here in 2007 because there was an announcement that a major section was ready to ship from a supplier. And, I knew that it could not be true from what I seen two years before. Well, the piece did ship. Boeing put pieces together. Then, it had the audacity (ah, engineers, don't you love those marketeers) to roll out an empty shell under great fanfare (some termed this a potemkin affair). You know, everyone had the expectation that the thing could fly soon. You know how long it took to get to the flying state? Several parts of a year. Now, of course, as problems surfaced, engineering found ways to get things to work. Eventually, the marketing view was told to let engineering take the lead. That thing of idiots driving the world is one big problem with the world, but everyone knows that do we not. We'll visit the issue, again, as we're getting to where complicated states will require, continually, our collective intelligence, with minimal gaming. It was about that time that the financial idiocy was coming out. You see, the engineers finally got the 787 out, albeit there may be still things that need to be worked out. Finance? Ben has done his best to float the idiots. It was just a little while ago that Jamie was arguing that they knew what they were doing and ought to self-regulate. Then, the whale plopped in his lap, poor guy. Fortunately, there are people looking into these matters, such as Rick Bookstaber (his post points to related research).

---

Now, we all ought to consider that complexity is something that ought to keep us from hubris (see Business, as stupid - written before I knew about Rick's post). We have two factors that are at large here. Mathematics and its descent into common use is a prime one. That applies in this case (we noted that earlier) and in business. It's really the same failing for both engineering and business (where these two do not overlap, okay?). In case of business program management, we have ideas that "risk" has been conquered; just think back to idiotic claims in the 2007/2008 time frame. I know, Ben with his largess has open a spigot to imaginary bucks that has aerated the gaming (so what that the DOW is up? tell me, please, in detail, what is behind that? now, please, follow it up with something of value that is real? can you find some balance in your analysis? oh, you're considering that we've hocked the future for our progeny?). Now, engineering has similar problems. Their success with modeling, especially dynamic systems, has caused many to run off as if a model equals reality (again, we can go into depth here and intend to).

What is the second factor? Human nature. In the case of business, it's all of the greed and other positions that push toward things like dark pools and other idiocies. Too, you get people, like the ad-men, using analysis to look for soft parts of yourself (as in, trying to determine how to lure your little arse into a compromising position, essentially). In engineering? It's the complexity, and a bunch of guys, usually, pushing mathematics, perhaps, way beyond its limits. My mathematician friend/mentor always complained that engineers just read the book. They don't prove theorems or work derivations (as in, guys, from a foundation'l sense, tell me why your methods work and what might be their limits). Oh, it computes (acknowledging, of course, that all of these issues go back to that artificial creation of ours) is sufficient? From whence do you make that to be your verification? Oh, because the computer model agrees with what you see in the real world?

Now, as said before, with engineering, you can test in reality (finance cannot do this the same way). With a plane, you can fly the thing, put it through some paces that are significant, and measure performance in the testing situation. Earlier, I left the engineering side alone since the financial idiots were still running amok. Will this latest event push me back to some balanced view? After all, we do have engineering failures. Many times, though, they seem to point back to human failure. I'm not so sure that such is always the case, albeit it is nice when we can do that (to be human is to err - nice little excuse, too many times). 

Remarks:

03/12/2013 -- Boeing has fixes that it wants to test.

02/28/2013 -- Boeing has proposed a solution; FAA is reviewing.

01/24/2013 -- Article from New York -- The Digital Skeptic: Dreamliner Brings iPhone 'Reliability' to the Skies. With something as complex as the 787, how many operational issues can be expected to crop up (at 35K feet -- rhetorical answer? A bunch.)? A student paper at Uniz of Az looks at 787 outsourcing (see Mahmoodi). Boeing Tech Fellow's cautionary note, on outsourcing (2001 - there was quite a bit of discussion at the 2004 conference in LA, to boot, about matters of technical design -- also, whistle blower?). Related, 787 blog.

01/23/2013 -- A look at the battery and related comments. Worth a read.

01/21/2013 -- WSJ has a nice recap from the beginning.

01/20/2013 -- WSJ story from the flightblogger.

01/18/2013 -- Problems, such as those alluded to in this blog, wouldn't have happened under Mullaly? Alan was an engineer; so, he knew his stuff and airplanes. Too bad that we can't go back and see how he would have handled all of those issues over the past few years. I would suggest this: no potemkin event.

01/17/2013 -- One criticism, that might stand up (we'll see), is that engineering took the back seat many (perhaps, too many) times.

Modified: 03/12/2013

Summary, 2012

The blog got its start in August of 2007. As of today, there have been 234 posts with 18 categories. The most read of the Categories is Minsky's model.

Past 30 days                              All time

The image shows the most-read posts for the Past 30 days and for All time.

• Of late (Past 30 days) - Confoundedness (Poll 7) comes from the summer of 2009 when expectations  concerned the planned start of the flight testing. There was an associated poll. At the time, the blog had switched to looking at the economic downturn and its causes. The program seemed to be on its way with a new schedule, however wrinkle came to fore. However, testing continued with first delivery occurring on September 26, 2011.  
• Since the beginning (All time) - Wing and body talks about a design issue that may have been related to the problem reported in summer of 2009. A continuing discussion from that occurrence would consider the need to keep ties between systems, their states, and the reality that they model. The issue really revolves around equivalences twixt computational model and nature. 

The number of posts show that there was more activity in 2008 (82) and 2009 (60). Of late, the post activity has wound down, to wit 2010 (21), 2011 (26), and 2012 (13). 

Remarks:

12/23/2012 --  This blog followed Truth Engineering by about a month. Motivation arose after a supplier for the 787 program said that they were rolling out something that would snap into place with other pieces. And, after the Company said that they could snap pieces together in a matter of days and that they were ready to put pieces together and to roll out a plane that would be ready to go into testing, more or less. Of course, it was after the 7/8/7 roll out, with tremendous fanfare, that the blog started.. People were scrutinizing photos taken at the roll out to see what was in the plane. Flightblogger was raising a clamor about seeing empty space. Then, the truth came out about the thing (mostly empty shell) that was rolled out not being ready. Luckily for some, the finance idiocy fell apart, big time, which took interest away. And, the Company eventually got the engineering focus the priority that it needed, and the engineers accomplished what needed to be done. 

Modified: 12/23/2012

Cracking or fracking

Rick has a post titled: A Crack in the Foundations of Economics. Essentially, the ergodic thought is less strong than was considered.

We suggested that, somewhat, a couple of years ago.

---

We do not need the Santa Fe Institute to know that the dismal science (and some of its practitioners?) stinks. We are to think of mathematization, with its computational buddy, as the means out of the morass? The recent downturn's effect, and the continued reign of the quants, speak otherwise. They, principally, are the reason for the mess.

Too, we have other cracks awaiting discovery.

I don't have to go far to find something to the effect that the Vienna thinkers have cautioned against the over-reliance on the so-called "algorithmic" approaches. But, then, what is the alternative?

We'll get to that, at some point.

---

The only sure thing is that the payout won't be there, for many. How do we get a more fair situation? Well, neuroscience might provide a means, especially when enlightened by the likes of Baruch.

Remarks:


12/13/2012 -- Don't know how long this page will be there, Daily Ticker. But, when I looked, 69% had said 'no' (hurt rather than helped) as to whether Ben has helped.

Modified: 12/13/2012

Avoiding oops

Not often, lately, have I posted twice (see Potemkin ...) in one day, but this is just too rich to ignore. While watching a talk given at IJCAI-2011 (Barcelona) in the context of computing (which, we know, is one manifestation of our ability to master the world), the following slide (in the talk, Homo heuristics) is the focus of the discussion.

The question relates to methods, and the power of heuristics. We'll have to discuss this further, but, for now, let's just look at what the slide tells us. In the world populated by those who seem to be advancing the state of the art (for all of us, yet we keep getting ourselves deeper into a hole, it seems), work such as this (Mean-variance model) receive the highest award (hint, yearly, big deal in Sweden).

Yet, when one of the main characters involved with the work invests his own money, he uses the heuristic shown in the slide. The guy's identity is cut out, as he is not the focus. What we ought to be concerned about is a worldview that races after abstract nonsense, that applies supposed knowledge gained from such thinking, and that doesn't restrict losses, or pains, to just those doing the playing.

No, we all are pulled into the quagmire.

The main question is how did this come about. As I've said many times, interloped mathematics and misunderstood computational modeling are the biggest factors related to the messes of today. Of course, that people with excessive greed have their fingers in the pie is a factor, to boot. We don't really want to go into that litany.

---

In brief, are we all not after a sustainable world that allows the fullest expression of the human element's potential (however you might want to express this)?

Yet, have we not let technology, and its sciences, run amok somewhat giving up control (albeit, a lot of this may have been subconsciously done)?


Remarks:

11/09/2012 -- Engineering memes. Nice.

10/05/2012 -- Note the discussion about 28:33 which show that 500 years of data would be necessary for the prize-winning approach to beat the simple heuristic. As the speaker says, 500 years too early for the bank to use.

Modified: 11/09/2012

Potemkin and more

On this day (and, perhaps, at other times, to boot), we'll always pause to think of Steve's contributions.

Discussions about 'reality distortion' are interesting. Many have charisma, of various types. Salesmen, in general, wouldn't be successful without something of this type of nature. Managers can motivate this way; is it better than using the stick?

We'll have to look at this further since Mr. Jobs was such a good example, given those with whom he worked, their particular domain of interest, and what has unfolded over the decades. You know, issues of computability are still open-ended, in many senses.

---

But, that's all for another day. Let's just reflect on potemkin type of things. The term was mentioned here as being used within a context related to wishes. That is, there was an enormous thrust, evidently, sustained by belief in modern systems (ah yes, we know how the finance people a mere four years ago, or so, were claiming to have conquered risk? Do you then recall what happened?).

People get into their heads that their rose-colored (whatever other color might be used) glasses do not have an effect on their perception, thereby influencing their cognition. Heck, they don't even know they have glasses on. But, hey, even the brilliants (yes, yes) have the same problem. We'll touch upon that theme quite a bit.

So, however these mis-perceptions are characterized, or emerge, and more, we can usually see the thing ex post facto. But, not always, since the effect is very strong. Certain worldviews seem to continue despite seeming lack of evidence (left purposely vague, think of it as a Rorschach test for yourself), and these have been around for oodles and eons of time. Yet, they do have some usefulness (if we can only get these things to settle into some type of peaceful - peace-able - mode).

---

Now, having said all that, reality distortion and potemkin'ism are two peas in a pod (not the only ones, mind you). Unfortunately, we're seeing this up-close during the muck-raking season (yet, are we learning anything therefrom?).

We could change context a little and talk about the issues related to determining value. We would also look at expectations' influence on outcome and measuring such. Going back to Steve, he noted that there were hard problems being worked by all sorts of people. How the interchange methods, and understanding of such, have emerged over the decades was not foreseen.

---

One main problem, folks? Too much effort at trying to pin down the future. Yes, there are a multitude of things to discuss here. In effect, though, look at nature. If you're following Darwin, are you going to propose that evolution is doing a design of experiments expansion? Well, there may be loose analogs, but, in actuality, we see myriads of proposed changes being filtered through some type of mechanism (we can use the notion of the most fit surviving - as, it can be modeled fairly well). And, please, be aware that those things being filtered are ex post facto realizations, not mere thoughtful entities.

Yes, territory-map problems can be one way to think of this. It is not TRUE, in any case, that foreknowledge (say, via computational modeling, visualization) is the same as the phenomenal existence (redundancy noted). Now, mental (loose sense) states can overlap that which is real. But, they are not the same (unless, ..., in certain events, we may have congruence of more than space-time, yet, science has steered from even considering such, except indirectly).

Remarks:

01/17/2013 -- Grounding due to fire.

11/09/2012 -- Engineering memes. Nice.

Modified: 11/09/2013