Must and May

One can argue that what we get with computation, if done right, is a good model for the world, our systems, their processes, and a whole bunch of other things. Then, this model can be used for analysis, for decisions, and learning. That last applies to the theme of this blog.

It is very easy for unsound modes to come into play with computation added as a resource, to wit product modeling as we've seen with the project motivated this blog and the accompanying mania about life cycle management's new expertise, called systems engineering.

You see, folks, if we're going to overlay computation on the world, then, we need to be aware that 'undecidability' is a stronger, and more prevalent, phenomenon than allowed by the 'can do' thrusts of engineering (and the associated business mind that wants something from nothing).

'must' and 'may' come into play. We'll be looking at a technical paper recently published by the ACM (Intro, Article) that shows what is necessary to statically analyze a program, that is a computer program. But, do we not use 'program' for labeling real world things, such as an 'airplane' program?

Let's be real. There are strong analogues between the cyber and physical (to wit, cyber-physical systems). So, we need to get a handle on the basic notions related to 'undecidability' for the sake of project success (that is, increasing the may) and for continued peaceful existence of that much beleaguer'd thing, called capitalism.

If we were truthful, we would see that 'must' is not frequently the case. As in, 'that' must follow from 'this' (except, tautologies are strong - yes, though trivial, this is a big set). Somehow, power (that is, top-down enforcement -- as opposed to the middle-out of engineering) seems to think that 'musts' are a larger set than what is real.

We'll be addressing this, too, from the truth engineering viewpoint, as the need for such endeavors arises from the main quandary that we face.

Systems engineering got to a state of hubris by thinking that it handles the 'may' in a strong fashion, it seems. Let's back up, folks, as they have no better way to handle undecidability than does any other discipline (it's somewhat amusing, as a few years ago, Scott Carson was going on about what we don't know - atta boy, who has 20-20 foresight (actually, who has this in hindsight?)?).

We can use the current state of, and the known (as in public) history of, one project to discussion the important issues, all in the name of progress.

Remarks:

11/21/2010 -- Three years ago, it was said: Computational foci raise miraculous need. Still applies.

09/27/2010 -- Capitalism is for the good of us, let's bring that forward.

Modified: 11/21/2010

Outhouse'd

Oh, I meant outsourced. But, this means, of course, nothing in particular here except the predilection of life to provide us plenty of oops material usually piled high and deep.

Yes, posts went on before how outsourcing is a lot like leveraging. It's okay to a point, then it goes out of control. Looking for magical endings is one way to characterize that sort of thing.

Well, there are many factors involved which we'll touch upon, in time. For now, just consider that many have run after promises from computer companies about the powers for systems to revolutionize both process and product engineering. Yes, indeed, folks.

On the process side, we'll always have people as the most important thing. Ah, management would love to have it robotic and database driven, though earned value remains as an issue. I have a suggestion here; let's put their glorified roles into automation, since their efforts would never deliver. No, red-faced sputterings and slurring about those under them is the usual.

On the product side, real world experiments cannot, yet, be forgotten in some grand scheme that sees more in modeling, simulating, and visualizing than what is there.

What's the answer? Ah, we'll get there.

When? Well, I'm not racing against the anyone's clock (though, it's to be within PTIME, I hope).

Remarks:

05/30/2013 -- This theme will play within the cosmology of business. Too, Zeno applies in the modern context.

11/02/2010 -- A year later, the message is the same, except some changes have occurred. Of real note is that the jobless rate is high; out-housing really set up for that. Also, we need to re-look at that learned from the 'vons' guys, Ludwig and Friedrich. See Near Zero.

11/06/2009 -- There ain't no train, just like there ain't no free lunch (TANSTAAFL).

10/11/2009 -- Discussion has gone over to FED-aerated. Note the 10/11/2009 Remarks about the Business Week article on India's progress' inhibitors. 'Near zero' recognizes that some always suffer more than others, especially in win-win situations, as the whole notion of characterization minimizes visceral reactions by diminishing the real in favor of the abstracted (ah, the modern world, you say?).

09/09/09 -- We'll need to look at UUUN, as a framework.

09/03/2009 -- Computational foci raise miraculous need. Yes, we need to talk NP and more, on both the process and products side of things.

09/02/2009 -- Let's face it, folks, undecidability needs to be discussed and adopted in any complex situational setting, especially if computers are involved. Only hubris pushes us to make loud exclamations about what we're going to do in the future.

09/02/2009 -- Computers make people dumber, yes indeed. That applies to engineering as much as it does to finance. Oh wait, is not that true about management to boot? One rises to levels of beyond ones capability (Peter's principle). Then, everyone under those needs to, then, dumb themselves down.

09/01/2009 -- Is it a limb and what type? It's probably too much to expect that undecidability will get recognized in the business world's fixation on hubris as the proper attitude.

08/31/2009 -- Scott is riding off to the sunset. But, how long will it take for Jim A to regain respect back?

Modified: 05/30/2013

Certainly certainty

Our every day events would have, with sufficient insight, enough meat to support very deep and prolonged discussion of the many philosophical issues suggested by the title of this post which will deal with unknown unknowns (the opposite, so to speak).

One could put it this way: we see 20-20 only when looking back. But, guess what? Even that is wrong; we never see 20-20 (assuming that pair of numbers represents some type of perceptual paragon). The problems of the world stem from several things, but cognitive mismatches are a very large one.

Case in point is the manager who has to exhibit some type of optimistic view (he or she thinks) in order to keep the troops motivated to work hard. "Oh yes," he says "we'll have this thing tested and out the door on time." Without naming names, one just has to go back a couple of years to see this.

As with any new program, we can look at both the process and the product and, of course, a lot more. But, let's look at these two. In this particular case, the process was shown to be other than was forecasted, and admitted to. Now, that in itself is not an issue, as who does not daily handle knowns and unknowns (see above). How these are handled will tell a lot about how the day develops. Being aware and able to handle curves as they are thrown by the daily life is an important part of success.

Now, speaking of the product side, there have been tests to date that have confirmed the thinking that went into functional design, which can be separated from process design. But, more tests are forthcoming which will be visible and of continuing interest. So, expect more comment.

Now, there will be knowns involved with the coming tests, such as those based upon the knowledge acquired by aerospace engineering (and other disciplines) over the years or derived from extrapolations that will be allowed by the tests to date. Of course, there are other sources of knowns.

And, unknown knowns (yes, and known unknowns) would have been handily taken care of by the advances in risk management. We saw this same discipline fail on the process side, but those delay factors may have been more management, and execution, failings rather than that of the planners. After all, the whole framework (on many sides) was new (which was gloriously touted early on). On the product side, there is more science that comes to bear which ought to help the management of this type of uncertainty if given the proper time.

It will be the final class, whose cardinality may be larger than we allow (that is an issue being addressed by truth engineering), that we'll have to watch, namely the unknown unknowns. You see, all along this program there have been mathematical and computational methods used that are more new than not. Just the fact that these have to slide along with advances in computer hardware speaks to that.

So, in a sense, the residue related to risk handling coverage (its incompleteness, if you would) will be a continuing subject of study. Too, some of these issues which can raise the philosophical conundrums do have a way of being unmanageable.

What? Yes, we need to recognize that and reward managers (the engineers already know this) that allow truthful handling of this phenomenon. In short, more of these things are influenced by basic undecidability than has been admitted, to date.

That we have a program with which to review and discuss this topic is something that is too important to just overlook. However, from the outside, there are always limitations in trying to accomplish such analysis.

But, it may be that the emergence of the internet-based information sources will help overcome some of the constraints that were formerly very difficult to surmount.

Remarks:

05/28/2012 -- Can we tell if we're on a limb?

09/14/2010 -- Must and may. Two important concepts.

09/02/2009 -- Lets face it, folks, undecidability needs to be discussed and adopted in any complex situational setting, especially if computers are involved. Only hubris pushes us to make loud exclamations about what we're going to do in the future.

07/14/2009 -- Nope, confounding continues.

05/18/2009 -- Testing in flight is within sight.

Modified: 05/28/2012

IQ and PIQ

Flynn's work on IQ shows that the IQ level (as determined by tests) increases by generation thereby requiring that the average value for the tests (100) needs to be re-calibrated. Other work shows that there are definite ways to look at how intelligence may be rated.

For now, let's just consider two that were considered in the reviewed book. The main thrust has been to measure ability to handle abstractions and their myriad layers as if that is how one gets to real knowledge (theory of everything - which, of course, pertains to nothing). A more operational focus would look at functionality (oh, by the way, which is more important for a plane - looks or being able to perform).

It is functionality that gets the short view of late. Why? The whole scheme of things seems to be going toward abstractions (covered in early posts here and in Truth Engineering) where those who excel on this level in certain types of instruments gather whole bunches of moolah (in many cases, with explicit take-aways (of bread, essentially) from those who are actually performing in ways these abstractionists can only dream about - many of whom have servants [essentially] who keep them afloat - often these types do not even know that their backs are unclothed [much more of a problem than the naked emperor] or that they are being carried about).

But, let's get back to IQ and the accumulation of this in both the functional and ethereal (of course, management and that dismal of sciences, economics) domains over time in an OEM of complicated things like a new airplane, let's call it PIQ. Well, PIQ would show increases within a program; so we see variants that exploit new knowledge plus earnings from improved processes. This is all well and good.

But, too, we see that within some type of operational methods (even including types of farming out) involved with continuing improvements within a technology line (of which we see the culmination that has been extremely successful come about - this is about 10 or so years ago), the progress makes things better and better. The PIQ increases; even generational dynamics would cause an upward movement; things work as expected, for the most part.

Now, and how is this not seen (except for the fact that those who really know seem to have lost out to the dreamers who deal with abstrations -why? - well, it's partly thanks to mathematics and the computer), when new technology comes in across the board with across-the-board changes in process and business thinking, well, it's a whole new ballgame (thinking about things, such as, undecidability ought to get some play - risk-based thinking is too tied into the blinders put on by the gloating about the effectiveness of mathematics -- without really understanding why we see this).

So, the PIQ of a farmed-to-ee cannot just on the dime get to the state required by the farmer-outer. It could probably even be shown that the internal PIQ could have converged long before now (oh, but it was money and risk at issue). Yet, those with their heads in the abstracted clouds cannot see that their feet may be on other than functionally-capable grounds (grounding is necessary, as that which flies is really an earth-bound beast until it overcomes constraints - and, even then, it's only for some finite time).

But, another benefit that derives from PIQ is knowing how to do things when necessary, such as 1) how to avoid stumbling, 2) how to recover from a stumble, and 3) how to learn from the fact that a stumble occurred.

One thing attributable to PIQ is believability which does not accrue to heritage alone. It is not that there is a general negative view in regard to due diligence (though, that lowering direction may just be happening monotonistically), rather business has taught us to doubt since a lot of focus goes into efforts that save and prune (almost to the point of anorexia, it seems, many times) just so that some pocket (or set of pockets) gets filled (okay, unfair perhaps, but not entirely untrue).

Some programs, such as we see with medicine, need to have a focus that is above certain goals with regard to which the heated mindsets are eternally engrossed (and, for the most part, dealing with things of no substance).

Remarks:

09/02/2009 -- Lets face it, folks, undecidability needs to be discussed and adopted in any complex situational setting, especially if computers are involved. Only hubris pushes us to make loud exclamations about what we're going to do in the future.

05/18/2009 -- Testing in flight is within sight.

11/01/2008 -- Much has happened with regard to the schedule, the suppliers, and more. Boeing announced some insights about its 787 planning. Before that, the idiocy of a truncated (abbreviated) test cycle was changed.

Reminder: at this point last year (we can pinpoint the specific dates), there was still some talk about delivering in May 2008.

Modified: 09/02/2009

Hype and hypothesis

This is a dichotomy (both bane and boon) that we'll look at in depth over several posts augmented by truth engineering discussions. Unfortunately, many times we can look at this with two other disparate, but not by necessity, things: talkers and doers. Would not any reasonable mindset recognize that we need balances?

Hype has several connotations and does not need to have a pejorative flavor; it is just that some roles deal with hype more than hypothesis. Who faults a team fan for cheering both before and during a game? Now, whether the fan is cheering after the game is another story. Perennial winners and losers in games may bring up interesting psychology; but, it's the in-between (our needed balance) where it is even more so. Modern technology has not made this balance any easier.

Does anyone think that if two teams play, the one with the greater number of fans will win? Okay. Granted there are advantages, such as the home field and targeted noise that could be major factors. At some point, we'll get back to this in terms of advanced sales being any indication of realness (after the fact, not a priori expectations)?

An extreme positive view is not all bad; we want a surgeon to be positive before surgery, yet read carefully the caveats that are presented to you prior to the event.

Granted we need vision and motivation in order to grasp for the higher rungs, yet progress also requires that advances in science and engineering be applied to project, and earned-value, management without the burden of too much hype. Part of the on-going discussion will deal with balances that need to be re-adjusted, it seems.

Now, hypothesis too has several uses. For now, we're taking a more informal approach that hopefully has some intuitive appeal. Do we all know that our expectations are not the reality? And, that the more complicated the future event the more care needs to go into details (while, at the same time, fall-back positions become important)?

One problem has been that advanced mathematics has shown tremendous use and potential beyond imagination. In actuality, we have probably only begun to harvest the fruit. We can easily, though, place more reliance than may be prudent; how can we know?

Essentially, our best bet is to use modern techniques, such as risk management; however, these techniques rely, as well, on the mathematics. Too, we need to compute; but, we need to be very careful about computation as a proxy for things (depending upon several factors including what things we're talking about).

And, we need to learn how this lesson from the market (which has a lot of prominence in the minds of deciders) applies more generally (say, with technology or products): past success does not guarantee future success.

Now, it may be easier to see why that lesson applies to the market than to our products (after all, we see successful engineering efforts everyday). It is true that many feats of prowess have been accumulated under the belt which can very well lead to certain types of confidence which may or may not be sustained. Does any amount of success warrant excessive hype (meant rhetorically, but only in part)?

Remarks:

03/25/2013 -- The Atlantic had an article about King Abdullah II. Now, he is an example of a doer, from several angles. What I liked when I read it was that while being educated in Massachusetts, he bussed tables. What that means for those who don't know is clean up dirty dishes and such. When I, as a young man, was in the US Army, we had still had KP duty which included such types of things. Another task that ought to be tried once by everyone: cleaning the grease pit.

09/02/2009 -- Lets face it, folks, undecidability needs to be discussed and adopted in any complex situational setting, especially if computers are involved. Only hubris pushes us to make loud exclamations about what we're going to do in the future.

06/25/2009 -- Yes, this is one of 5 issues.

01/22/2009 -- We'll be looking more at hype in this new day.

11/26/2008 -- Problems continued to arise in 2008. As of now, some static tests have been done. But, issues with supply management were troublesome. Of course, an IAM strike caused a little delay. But, there has been no test flight, as of yet, so functional issues remain more unknown than not. See Polls for an idea of opinion at various points.

10/26/2008 -- Yes, things fell apart for several reasons: fiction, leverage, and more.

10/04/2008 -- Wall Street unraveled here of late. The new plane is on hold. Much analysis is going on to describe what went wrong and why so fast on several fronts. Yes, happy talk is one factor.

Modified: 03/25/2013

Benchmark and performance

What is the saying? If you want something done right, do it yourself?

Well, we can't all fix our own cars, perform surgery on our own hearts, and such. Yet, that we can push the farming-out envelope too far will be part of the discussion.

Farming out work can also be having someone do what you don't want to do, and it's not an un-smart move. If something has been done before and what is being sought is to have better ways (by cost or what have you), then certain types of supplier-chain relationships can make sense.

However, such farming out, when there are new horizons to conquer, can be thought of as pushing difficulty to someone else. In short, avoiding responsibility (or, call it risk sharing). That is, letting someone else do the creative work and just kicking back and evaluating the results relies on problematic benchmark management.

How about another saying? I don't know what I want but can tell you when I see it.

Do we see requirement and specification work falling into the trap of show me and I'll let you know? If something has not been done before, can doing a 'game change' by modifying terminology help obtain the necessary performance?

So many questions to ask and try to answer. We need to look at issues of measuring progress to sort out these benchmark and performance issues.

Remarks:

09/02/2009 -- Lets face it, folks, undecidability needs to be discussed and adopted in any complex situational setting, especially if computers are involved. Only hubris pushes us to make loud exclamations about what we're going to do in the future.

01/23/2009 -- Expect more effort in firming up the earned-value (and related) discussions.

11/01/2008 -- In the fall of 2008, IAM went on strike. Around the time that SPEEA would begin their talks with Boeing, the company announced that it had learned a few things about outsourcing. Imagine that! Of course, a post here had already made a parallel between outsourcing and leveraging, that bane of the financing world.

Modified: 09/02/2009

Scale up versus extrapolation

Aviation Week (AW) covered the recent problem discovery and reported an element of surprise.

No, folks, this was predictable from the beginning as shown by entries (see #2, #4 and more) in this blog; one main issue deals with quasi-empiricism.

First of all, in the AW article, an engineering professor is quoted as saying that Boeing did it backward. Usually, one starts small and then scales up (remember this important concept, as we'll cover it more thoroughly). That is, one enlarges from a small basis. You know, there is an adage: don't bite off more than one can chew.

The concept is applied a lot in modeling. In fact, software vendors always worry about scale up, in many ways, such as logic, throughput and more (very many ways).

The professor expressed some surprise that Boeing had extrapolated so much from a limited basis of knowledge. You see, not only were there relaxations along many axes in the product and process spaces, the program jumped to a maximum without prototyping. Why? Well, the computer was the magic key (computerism).

Now, the article says that some claim that the software involved (meaning CAE) is not suspect. No, the article says, it was the data and model that were. According to those that know, including a quoted expert.

Well, the blogger has no inside information on the particular project but speaks from experience related to this type of modeling. The software, and its underlying philosophical framework, are always to be suspect. Why? There is no grand theory to support these things to the level that we have been led to believe.

Ah, folks, it is a very un-insightful viewpoint for an engineering company to not know the limits of mathematics and software. But, the view is probably the one to be expected to be held by a gaming generation, that is until they bump up against the world.

We'll go into this further, as the subject is not something amenable to easy resolution. I hope that the FAA is aware of the issues like these.

One big issue? Allowing output from one program to run into another program as if it were equivalent to naturally-obtained data. Say what? Well, why do you think they say the software is okay but not the data/model? Supposedly, the belief in the software is much stronger than we expect. Gosh, if this is so, it needs to be deconstructed; perhaps, recent events provide the perfect opportunity for engineering to learn.

Formerly, there was a hard rule to never think that a program's output stood for nature. Especially so is this the case when dealing with the results of an application of differential equations (and the like); no matter how brilliantly close these results may appear when viewed with the newer mechanisms for visualization (yes, we'll go into that more, too), they are approximates to the real.

Too, these techniques require fiddling (think of oodles of knobs) for controlling the evolution of a solution (in this case, data or model?).

Gosh, have we begun to believe that our little virtual selves (and their artifacts) on the tubes (in cyber space or the cloud) are more real than what we are in the world (and its artifacts) in which we live? This will be very important to discuss.

The management view does not understand the subtleties of these problems. Technical fellows do a little bit more so, but they too can go astray.

There is (can be) no hubris in engineering!!!

Remarks:

01/19/2011 -- Update1 and Update2. The focus now will be mostly the idiots of economics/finance.

09/02/2009 -- Let's face it, folks, undecidability needs to be discussed and adopted in any complex situational setting, especially if computers are involved. Only hubris pushes us to make loud exclamations about what we're going to do in the future.

08/20/2009 -- Nor in financial mathematics, either.

Modified: 08/24/2011

Oops types

So, we need to address this issue so that we can motivate solutions. That is, yes, the tone here will turn from taking potshots at oops and the oops'ers toward a more constructive bent.

We can talk three basic oops types, for now. There will be more which then will be categorized, analyzed, and smoothed (nod to the fact that underdetermination is the main thing, folks) out (we cannot remove wrinkles of many sorts).

So, for the first type, it would be a purely human affair, like the hubris we see with the CEO crowd (not all, just those with the biggest egos and pockets). But, there are other types. Is not the saying, to err is to be human? Does that not imply that none of us are without some fault and mangling ways?

In regard to that, the CEOs ask for their comeuppance several ways which we can discuss at length (but will not, given the new spirit). Trash talking gamers might be another category, but that brings in a whole set of other issues.

So, we have human error.

Then, for the second type, we have artifact oops, such as computer, or system, error. Mind you, system would imply products of all types. So, engineering has been working for eons on improvements. And, we see processes in place to help ensure better lives from use of the results. Some of this is just plain common sense, yet a lot of it had to be mandated by government actions (thanks, CEOs - oops, there I go again -- the new spirit will eventually win out here, it is guaranteed - oops, again).

Many product makers think about safety and minimizing harm from failure. Those who think forwardly in computing are looking at what would be involved with error-correcting systems. Mind you, communications has worked on this for years, with various types of checks and fix ups. But, as we ascend the conceptual tree (and complicate contexts), it becomes more of a problem, especially since undecidability is at the core. There have been means proposed, discussed, and implemented throughout the years. In fact, default logic, for one, was motivated by these concerns.

So, those are two types of oops: the wetware type and the hardware type.

What then is the third type? Well, sci-fi aficionados will get a metaphor of the borg. What we have, folks, is that ubiquitous computing has permeated human affairs to the deepest level and across the board. And, the growth proceeds both in depth and in breadth. There is no sense in being alarmed, as this progress was an inevitable consequence of the enlightenment switch that was thrown a few centuries ago.

It is that third type of oops that we'll focus on in 7oops7. Plenty harp on what others do wrongly, that seems to be a human trait. There is a saying about this that involves glass houses (find it, if you must). Many suffer from hardware (all types) failures. What is problematic there is that many providers of these things like to blame oops type 1; it's called user error.

Now, to be complete, we need to mention software. You see, with computation, even hardware can be parameterized. So, we will place software oops into the type 2, as then oops type 2 would actually be any type of system error.

So, we will look at oops of this third type, yet that we can differentiate between oops type 2 and oops type 3 is not always easy (here we need to link to discussion of cyber-physical issues). Come to think of it, what we might think of as oops type 1 could very well have some oops type 3 in it (that is, someone (CEO) takes a stance based upon they're told by a techie who is off the mark).

The main thing to remember is that oops type 3 deals with humans dealing with systems. This can range from comic (Chaplin's guy) to tragic (too many, and too depressing, to itemize). These types are going to become more of a concern (already were, but now cannot be ignored) as we proceed with the 21st century.

Aside 1: That examples of oops type 3 will be heavily computationally flavored is only the result of the growing ubiquity. In many cases, we might discuss things that are mechanical or other.

Aside 2: it might be fun to look at what the human-machine interface people have defined over the years in terms of oops, such as usability.

Remarks:

01/15/2012 -- Two oops are of interest here. One deal with a product, namely one of these types handled by Sealy. Now, another was related to computing, namely mad-house rush, on the web, to be first in line to receive something (Dr Oz). We saw mayhem this past fall in situations where people had to fight to get one of a limited number of goods (black friday). So, is that the point, the settos? If so, tsk?

02/03/2011 -- This is a place holder, for now, for Lewis' article. The Irish people (where is the rage?) were screwed over even more than the Americans. Now, one could argue oops; but, the truth is that certain minds need much more restraint than they are willing to admit. Unfortunately, other people bear the effects of these idiots (who, by the way, may, in many cases, test well - too bad there is not an effective arse test).

12/14/2010 -- One necessary topic will be compiled knowledge.

Modified: 01/15/2012

Rework

This blog has accumulated posts since July of 2007. It has a companion blog which started earlier: truth engineering (tru'eng). Through the eight (almost) years, tru'eng allowed a more general look at the problems covered in this blog.

For both blogs, the initial focus was on product and process, from early stages all the way through (to release and support and further). At the time that this blog started, some unifying schemes were already underway; these have come a long way.

Being that the blogger has been doing advanced computational work for decades, it is nice to see the culmination of a whole lot of work even though youngsters seem to, now, benefit more through massive influxes of money into their pockets. Yet, all of that, plus the adulation of the masses, does not remove some basic problems which we will again attempt to re-introduce into the discussion.

You see, oops are all around. I have a litany (several decades in existence) that will come to fore. You might consider that its existence has fostered the appreciation of "near zero" (we'll get back to that). The reason that some oops are allowed is that the little people provide a very large buffer. Too, some things on the litany (yes) relate to means established to provide "teflon" to certain types of folks. ... But, one can say that the world has always worked thus.

So, oops? Well, from an engineering focus, we turned to finance as idiots, and their impact, seemed to abound everywhere. The blog had the original focus for two months. Then, things started to fall apart (actually, the awareness of such, since the issues were there - not seen by the experts, such as King Alan): November 2007 post. And, would you believe(?), the engineers got their act together (after marketing quit bothering them); the financial wackos are worse now.

---

So, let's take one example. Since the tru'eng rework addresses undecidability, we ought to go back and look at an instance where both of these blogs had a post on the same topic.

...7'oops7 - Reasonable effectiveness - good engineering practices can produce results without considering the issues raised here; yet, suppression and oppression of the importance of these issues (to be discussed further) does come back to bite - usually when hubris is at some unbearable height. 

... Truth engineering - Unreasonable effectiveness - Unreasonable comes about since there are all of these things that we can do, and that we can use to do, which come about from ways and means that are not known (whence?, etc.). Basically, we do, learn, redo, ... while cycling through knowns and unknowns (with this very large reality in which we find ourselves responding (as it wants). At one time, there was discussion of unknown-unknowns (BTW, this was a subject handled jointly, to boot), almost in a frivolous manner. Yet, if you look at the tru'eng post, we think that number-fying conquers most (if not all).  

---

There are many examples (two shown above) where a re-look is apropos. How this review gets accomplished is an open issue, right now.

Remarks: Modified: 06/12/2015

06/11/2015 --

Earned value II

'Earned Value' is used generally. Perhaps, one might argue for another term which may come about at some point. In the meantime, those who deal with projects, and funding such, have grappled with the issues for years. In many cases, there have been advances in planning well such that things come about as planned. But, it is a known fact that projects and products mostly don't follow plan. There are good reasons for this.

T-issues are one factor. Too, the same abstraction-phile attitude mentioned throughout this, and the related, blogs need, to be understood better, not that plenty haven't spent oodles of time and energy on the issues.

So, if the pros have trouble, what chance does the common person have? Well, it's probably true for some that the issues dissolve, for those in power namely. Of course, many succeed despite not being in power (this is another t-issue, yes truth engines). Others, who are driven by external circumstances, are not so adept, nor can they be it could very well be argued.

Why, then, this effort and focus? How 'oops' are handled is key to the subject. It just happens that that which is covered by 'earned value' is another key factor (as, loops and hoops). Itemizing and discussing the others, over time, will be apropos.

As an aside, we will re-look at IQ and PIQ and other types (IQ and more, plus mis-measure).

But, the real core of the issue is that we only have 20-20 ex post facto vision. And, some would argue that we don't even have that. The phenomenon of differing eye witness accounts is the best example. Our attempts at removing this problem with reductionists' techniques, mathematics, and computation will not remove the basis cause. No, it's not even a people issue.

The future is, in a sense, undecidable, in many different ways, despite attempts at regimes that attempt definition of best practices, of risk reduction (oh, yes, the financial guys have shown us what a charade this is!), method optimization, and a number of other disciplines. Fortunately, there are glimmers of light, such as fuzzy methods, chaos engineering, and a few other forward-thinking attempts at control.

Ah yes, look at control theory (for instance, try IEEE Control Systems Society) whose domain is where these issues, in part, lie; it's a century-old plus field of study, yet there is no thought of complete understanding of the issues nor of utmost predictability.

Granted we can compute things like orbits, such that pinpointing things like eclipses is a common affair (complicated, though it is), but what will next week's weather be? Even without our (meaning the human race's) influence, would weather forecasting be any easier? Oh, yes, who would be here to observe?

So, there is a lot on the plate. One thing to do will be to sync the two views: 7oops7 and Truth Engineering.

Remarks:

09/09/09 -- We'll need to look at UUUN, as a framework, for assessing planning and reporting schemes for program management. Too, accepting this type of uncertainty into the genre is not counterproductive.

09/03/2009 -- Computational foci raise miraculous need. Yes, we need to talk NP and more.

09/02/2009 -- Lets face it, folks, undecidability needs to be discussed and adopted in any complex situational setting, especially if computers are involved. Only hubris pushes us to make loud exclamations about what we're going to do in the future.

07/14/2009 -- Nope, confounding continues.

06/25/2009 -- Yes, this is one of 5 issues.

05/18/2009 -- Testing in flight is within sight.

Modified: 09/00/2009

Other oop types

Despite that we can handle 'oops and that we mostly enjoy the aah, oops abound.

Lately, the posts have dealt with a couple of types (engineering and financial), but there was some discussion earlier of the medical types. One to consider is the stroke, in the medical sense.

There may be several types of stroke, each with its contributing factors. The fact remains, though, that most strokes require a recovery process that is not short and that some do not allow any recovery.

Further, one may the stroke, and other health problems, as a metaphor for failures in various areas (essentially oops), as suggested by an earlier post. Naturally, avoidance is more important and being prepared for recovery, though we need both.

How many 'strokes' are there awaiting us from which recovery will be both painful and costly? Well, the whole sub-prime thing may be one. Too, that finance has put on a gaming hat may very well be another.

Others?

Remarks:

09/02/2009 -- We'll need people who can handle undecidability and its influence.

01/18/2009 - Gosh, several things happened on the way to the forum in the 3rd and 4th quarters. Essentially, it all shows that we need to look at why we need finance.

11/20/2008 -- Boon and bust, the way of fairy dust.

Modified: 09/04/2009

Our new masters

The title refers to the fact that the best-and-brightest, of the financial and business worlds, have led us down a path to perdition. How can we, and our leaders, extricate ourselves?

Or, how can be avoid that we're to be perpetual servants?

We need to thank the USA Today for the look at what has been put on us as a yoke by the best and brightest.

Pure idiocy. Gigantic oops.

And, in the name of computation and mathematics, both of which have been interlope'd (meaning, of course, they'll spawn a seemingly unending set of oops), wake up!

This comment on flightblogger is apropos, to boot.

Remarks:

09/14/2010 -- Must and may. Two important concepts.

07/25/2010 -- Yes, we have complex situations in the modern milieu. However, that we have undecidability as a strong factor needs to be better understood. That some would exploit, via pirating, these uncertain times for their own game needs to be addressed. That the game has been set up, thanks to all the best and brightest and their thoughts on economics, to allow such intense, and daily, energy to be put upon what is mostly a chimera suggests one things, folks: we need to get a handle on near-zero, its reality, and what that means for how we ought to manage economic affairs.

Modified 09/14/2010

Decline and fall

Gosh, some (many?) Boeing engineers are probably sick at the status (Chicago Tribune) of the 747, and the 787. Guess what? Their bosses are probably clueless. Jim M, included.

Yes, farm out work (the proverbial throwing things over the wall) that you don't understand and hope that it'll pay (something for nothing - plus, magic is in the air).

We'll be getting into this with more depth. But, as a prolog, there are oodles of posts here berating the decline of capability, the wishfulness brought on by computation, and the whole notion that one can be successful while relaxing (idiocy to the max) along all axes in a problem solution search.

The world is screwed up. England became a financial center (of course, we know that there isn't much behind that whole notion - see Fedaerated - except movement from one pocket to another - generally, from the many to the few). Professor Wiener thinks that it's due to the aristocratic influence of: wanting something from nothing (get it from the peasants), not doing for self (oh, no way, that is what maids and servants are for), being mostly head-driven (classic cause of egoism and out-of-touchness - as with reality). Yes, we're talking about his thinking as published in 'English Culture and the Decline of the Industrial Spirit: 1850-1980'.

Some think that England needs to get back to its engineering glory of old. Yet, a lot of that left the old world (to wit, the influx over the pond), just to get away from the aristocratic mess (yes, some of that was brought to here - why else that CEOs (and other business leaders - political leaders, to boot) think that they're it?).

Actually, we had a generation of the best-and-brightest run after finance. And, what a mess? Thanks, Harvard, et al.

As said before, we need some type of Magna Carta for business. And, we need to run things with people who have taken a vow of simple living and ethics. Yes, indeed!!! We, and the earth, cannot abide these idiots (cartoon - Phila Daily News).

One cause is the ignorance of undecidability and its place, along with the requisite necessity for quasi-empirical views in our work.

Remarks:

08/01/2013 -- Ben cannot unwind or taper down; he has too many Doves. We'll have to get back to the king thing (yes, the divine rights of the CEO, new royalty, in other words) and dampening of these types by a new outlook (Magna-Carta'ísh).

10/07/2011 -- Magna Carta, the celebration thereof.

09/21/2010 -- Definitely, there are class divisions, in business. Such as the one who waits out the contract period, gets the contract signed (albeit after a rejection by the union members), and then lays out layoff plans that were known all along. Magna Carta needed, indeed.

Modified: 08/01/2013

Cramming for the exam

There is always a disparity between what management might wish and hope to accomplish and what engineers and builders can actually do to produce a viable product. Therefore, we rely heavily on tests to close the gap (one attempt at empiricism). But, the emphasis has to be on doing the work and ensuring that the product is safe.

Introducing systems engineering and advanced computer systems might help but do not remove the fact that we do not have 20-20 foresight.

Getting to a point where the schedule is without a buffer is troublesome since the schedule can be adjusted at several points (in fact, advanced project management might argue that it 'ought' to be) thereby showing some insight to the problems that have encountered (assuming that they can be discussed).

A test situation of a major product is much more than just cramming for a final exam.

Remarks:

08/01/2013 -- Ben cannot unwind or taper down; he has too many Doves. We'll have to get back to the king thing (yes, the divine rights of the CEO, new royalty, in other words) and dampening of these types by a new outlook (Magna-Carta'ísh).

05/25/2011 -- Such as, lemons problem, dark pools, ... Oh, so much to look at! Does the idiocy have any limit?

01/19/2011 -- Update1 and Update2. The focus now will be mostly the idiots of economics/finance.

09/02/2009 -- Lets face it, folks, undecidability needs to be discussed and adopted in any complex situational setting, especially if computers are involved. Only hubris pushes us to make loud exclamations about what we're going to do in the future.

07/14/2009 -- Nope, confounding continues.

01/28/2009 -- Earned value issues continue to be of interest.

11/01/2008 -- Much has happened with regard to the schedule, the suppliers, and more. Boeing announced some insights about its 787 planning. Before that, the idiocy of a truncated (abbreviated) test cycle was changed.

Reminder: at this point last year (we can pinpoint the specific dates), there was still some talk about delivering in May 2008.

Modified: 08/01/2013

Outsourcing as a panacea

As said before, outsourcing is analogous to leveraging which seems to be a major factor in the current meltdown of the economy. In terms of outsourcing, happy thinking does not make things real; all it does is cloud the issues. Engineers have to know to make it real which implies up-close and hands-on experience.

Seattle P-I reports that Boeing plans to keep more engineering in-house for future programs (what about the current?). Does that appease SPEEA?

Remarks:

09/04/2009 -- Out of the house.

09/02/2009 -- Lets face it, folks, undecidability needs to be discussed and adopted in any complex situational setting, especially if computers are involved. Only hubris pushes us to make loud exclamations about what we're going to do in the future.

07/29/2009 --Nope, confounding continues. Yes, there are, at least, 5 issues to be considered.

05/18/2009 -- Testing in flight is within sight.

01/28/2009 -- Necessity of horses for the carts.

12/18/2008 -- Leveraging, in and of itself, is not bad.

11/01/2008 -- Or is it from real insight?

There is the saying that if one wants something done right, then do it yourself. Of course, there are many things that we cannot do ourselves, hence we need the expertise (and the good graces, sometimes) of others.

There is much to talk about on this subject, such as does not Boeing know that within its own boundaries it could not allow stove-piping? So, why would that not be an issue with disparate (in many way, geographically, politically, ...) parties?

Methinks that a marvelous engineering company needs to get its footing back. It is hard to believe the silliness displayed last fall (Cramming for the exam, Rush job, A new game (risky business), ...). This whole thing will bear oodles of scrutiny ex post facto.

Modified: 09/04/2009

Earned value

Many posts referred to this topic of earned-value, assuming that there had been an attempt at cohesion and closure. Well, no such post exists (yet), so the below will fill in the blank.

For starters, anytime that we plan a future activity (where the timeframe can be from the next minute to much longer), we have expectations and then the actual reality. Well, these don't always line up after the fact. Many times, hype tries to fill the gap as the expected value does not add up.

It's true, too, for serious things, like engineering, though, in that case, the gap or disparity is not as great as we see with economics (dismal science) , finance (ah, let's count the ways), medicine (unfortunately).

So, 'earned value' is a way to attempt to map results to plan to do things like check status of a project. Think of it this way. If one is doing a task and thinks one is 50% complete, what does this mean? Well, that estimate could apply to the steps in the process, amount of resources (or even dollars) used, the state of what's being produced or accomplished, and other things. Tying these things down is not as easy as it may seem.

How do we know? Well, Microsoft could tell us a lot, as could a few manufactures of complicated systems. Many other examples abound. In short, many feel that the problem is not solvable in the contexts allowed now. We really need a better way to think of these things.

So, let's get the hole in the blogs filled, or at least outlined, so that future discussions can refer back and extend the topic, and used 'earned value' as the label.

Remarks:

09/02/2009 -- Lets face it, folks, undecidability needs to be discussed and adopted in any complex situational setting, especially if computers are involved. Only hubris pushes us to make loud exclamations about what we're going to do in the future.

07/14/2009 -- Nope, confounding continues.

05/18/2009 -- Testing in flight is within sight.

01/26/2009 -- 'Earned Value' is used generally. Perhaps, one might argue for a more general term which may come about at some point. In the meantime, we'll continue to use that tag.

Modified: 09/02/2009

Reasonable effectiveness

The steps to a new product can be long and arduous. The computer has helped improve the situation on many fronts, such as design and analysis, enhanced products through embedded systems, and efficient processes, to name a few.

In short, effectiveness may be a measurable property. So, one might ask a question about the reasonable effectiveness of analytics such as those reported recently where physical tests help confirm analytics and product properties. Learning to balance between the sufficiency of model and any necessity of the physical foundation is still an art; this has historically been less troublesome overall in engineering than in finance.

Remarks:

06/11/2015 -- There will be a rework here and a rework there.

09/02/2009 -- Lets face it, folks, undecidability needs to be discussed and adopted in any complex situational setting, especially if computers are involved. Only hubris pushes us to make loud exclamations about what we're going to do in the future.

06/30/2009 -- Another delay (is the project out on a limb?).

01/22/2009 -- Questions to ponder include how does engineering handle hype? We all rely on, and must trust, that discipline's prowess.

11/26/2008 -- Boon and bust, the way of fairy dust.

10/27/2008 -- Yes, things fell apart for several reasons: fiction, leverage, and more.

09/11/2007 -- On another note, a summary of the vote: Date, Total (I think so, Praying for, Maybe not, Nope)

• 9/5/2007, 47 (3, 5, 9, 27)
• 9/9/2007, 75 (13, 8, 11, 43)

Modified: 06/11/2015

Carts need horses

Sometimes a production process proves to be problematic even in the best of situations with products that have been made before.

With a new product, can one expect to spread production before the concept has been proven? Even with the best of analytics, could this be somewhat like the old adage of putting the 'cart before the horse'?

There are development issues to consider, too, especially with all the new capabilities that enable and lead toward efforts at a geographically-dispersed team.

The distributed model might expect suppliers to become expert quickly in a new area; attainment of expertise requires time (and one might add repetition, continued improvement, and other practices associated with the best efforts).

Farmed-out work has a worker and looker flavor needing insightful overview, hopefully with more than just the critic's role for the looker. Expertise is not a vicariously obtained attribute.

Too, would prudence suggest that production might need to lag behind progress on the proof axis?

In the past, the effort to create a physical product model helped the 'proof' advancement; with the onset of computer modeling, the question arises of how much the model may replace reality. Much about that question is still an open issue; when the product is complex and has stringent performance criteria, ought we expect a stronger temporal tie between analytical tests and physical tests throughout the process?

Remarks:

01/19/2011 -- Update1 and Update2. The focus now will be mostly the idiots of economics/finance.

09/02/2009 -- Lets face it, folks, undecidability needs to be discussed and adopted in any complex situational setting, especially if computers are involved. Only hubris pushes us to make loud exclamations about what we're going to do in the future.

07/14/2009 -- Nope, confounding continues.

05/18/2009 -- Testing in flight is within sight.

01/28/2009 -- A few related posts that came later: IQ and PIQ, Earned value, Hype cycle, Outsourcing as panacea. Expect a recap on this theme.

11/26/2008 -- Problems continued to arise in 2008. As of now, some static tests have been done. But, issues with supply management were troublesome. Of course, an IAM strike caused a little delay. But, there has been no test flight, as of yet, so functional issues remain more unknown than not. See Polls for an idea of opinion at various points.

Modified: 01/19/2011

Out on a limb

It seems that Boeing may be out on a limb with its 787 project with the limb cracking. We're almost two years past the 'potemkin' roll-out. That there was recently delay news (again) opens up a can of worms requiring analysis and comment.

Here are a couple of items to start a long list.

-- Announcements just prior to the recent delay news were awfully hopeful and essentially misleading (actually, can we say that they were untrue?). Where is the board? What is the disconnect that we see with Boeing's board and management? How can the board sit idly by and let this comedy of errors continue? Two years ago, a Boeing press release exclaimed that the first 787 was getting put together for the roll-out and reminded us all that the plan was to fit pieces from far away places together in just three days. That same year, management kept promising that first delivery would be May 2008 until late in the year. In fact, one manager (PR type) was talking this just a day before Boeing announced its first delay. This type of disjoint communication speaks a lot about underlying problems. Of course, many of the problems may be technically beyond the grasp of the board. But, are they making proper efforts?

-- There seems to be a disconnect between engineering and management. But, how can we know with the widely scattered team that bridges across countries and cultures? Now, the computer was ostensibly the means to bridge the disparity. But, we have already seen Boeing recognize that it has to bring some of the work back in house and more thoroughly monitor the work of partners (sub-contractors) as a means to reduce the rework. Too, the computer was used in lieu of prototyping as a cost-saving measure. Hah! Those who know realize that the physical modeling is not mature enough for this belief. Would the wise advise caution since the science of composites is so new compared to metals? How could the board allow this belief to grow to such an extent that it put Boeing out on the limb and it culminated in a sequence of misadventures that would be comical if the matter was not so serious?

These are only two of many items that will be discussed further.

But, let's be specific, please. The blog is written by someone who has worked CAD/CAE, KBE, and the like. Okay? But, he also knows that we have run off way too strongly after the sirens (yes, of mythology) of computation. That we have many of a gaming generation can be a little disconcerting. The metrics of reality are quite a bit different than that of 'virtual' reality. The 787 has to fly in the natural and not the computational world. See discussion on Truth Engineering.

flightglobal's poll shows that about 300 people think that the project is doomed. Interesting, indeed. We could probably find a few who thought this back in 2005.

Remarks:

09/02/2009 -- Lets face it, folks, undecidability needs to be discussed and adopted in any complex situational setting, especially if computers are involved. Only hubris pushes us to make loud exclamations about what we're going to do in the future.

09/01/2009 -- Scott C is riding off to the sunset. Jim A will take over the reins. Everyone wonders what the new schedule announcement means in that it was right before this changeover. Just as with the finance folk, it has been exacerbated and accelerated by common use of mathematics and computing. See prior Remark.

07/23/2009 -- Some confoundedness results from not handling underdetermination properly. Of course, the whole thing is not new; it has been exacerbated and accelerated by common use of mathematics and computing. The genie is out of the bottle, folks. Hubris, in the modern age, will not relate back to engineers who have pen holders in their pockets. That is, those who resolve issues like we're seeing here will mostly be non-elite, and money does not buy the solution.

07/05/2009 -- Recent comments suggests a too strong belief in the computational.

Modified: 09/02/2009

Ten years

Ten years ago, I started this blog one month after I started the truth engineering blog. What precipitated this blog was the 'potemkin' even of the 787 project. With hoopla, a plane was rolled out and touted as being ready to fly. However, the test flight started about two years later.

Why would I have cared? I was watching a local subcontractor who had, formerly, been a Boeing site. The main notion was to have sections that were complete and joined together in Seattle (or wherever the final assembly was to be done). And, arrival of the pieces and first flight was supposed to be a matter of day. Nice concept. It eventually worked out.

But, up-front mouthing off got in the way of engineering. For a long time, this went on. Once the source of the issue was removed and an engineer took over. The program made progress and got into the sky.

And so, that was the end of that, right? Well, for the most part, downstream glitches popped up, but that is normal (out to be expected). The press (harpies) seems to not understand undecidability (which applies to any decision process, not just logic).

In fact, look at the idiots doing business press. They (and investors) want management to forecast to the dime future monetary concerns. What? These are smart folk being the dumbest ones on the planet. Guess what? As the 787 issues were resolved, the financial problems came to fore. Oh Lord.

Myself? I felt like Rip Van Winkle as I had not really paid close attention (for many reasons). So, there are enough posts here that lay out the issues. And, these are not resolved. The Fed (another blog that started later) brought their largess to bear, leaving themselves with a load of toxic crap that still has not been handled.

How to do this? We sure would like to watch this unfold. Also, big Ben tried to taper. That caused a tantrum. Investors? To me, it's like kids in a candy store. Where can we get a mature economy defined?

Given that people err, the 7'oops7 name stuck. Anything complicated has associated error. Business likes to talk risk management. Oh yes, those guys were talking in the 2007/8 timeframe that we would never have another serious downturn. Oh sure, everyone has forgotten? Well, guess what happened soon after that type of bragging.

Yet, there were not perps. None. Fortunately, the press gave us some snapshots of the rogues at a table. They were cowering before Congress, looking for assistance.

In any case, this graphic shows Wikipedia edits starting in 2005. The blogs started in 2007. And, that activity (requiring lots of research) took time. Then, later, the notion of re-looking at American history came to fore, with the added framework of real people who were here through it all. That, folks, needs attention.

To see specifics, go to this post on truth engineering (Ten years).

Remarks: Modified: 05/13/2017

05/13/2017 --