Tranche or not

Earlier posts considered whether we are putting too much trust in mathematics and the related computation (issues of quasi-empiricism) and in processes based upon those two. There were allusions to problems that come out of abstraction as it pulls one away from substance toward what are 'bubbles' (a bane of modern existence). That is, having more substance can be thought of as equivalent to being more 'real' (opening up a door here).

One problem to understand and to control is application of the computational to objects-in-themselves (those who want to knock me as Kantian may consider their understanding of tribalism on intellect). On the computer, it is easy to reboot and to start over. Simulated errors and faults (on the computer) have no consequences in the world.

Yet, we cannot do similarly, that is reverse time or consequences, in the real world except for limited types of things.

Simulation has brought about troublesome thinking especially in so far as success there makes it appear to be 'okay' that one takes simulated data and acts as if it is real. It used to be that a prime counsel, in defining and using numeric processes related to complicated natural situations, was to not confuse the observed (measured in the world) data with something that was generated by a model.

Of course, where one can occasionally calibrate some model against the world, such intra-computer work is of use (operationally sound).

In the sense of a new product, especially one like a plane, the vehicles that will fly and otherwise support testing would have more substance than sub-assemblies or those artifacts with which abstractionists like to be bothered, even though the sub-assemblies in themselves can be tested or that the artifacts are amenable to analysis. And, in the case of a simulator, flight data would support calibration, so to speak.

Looking at the 'tranche' logic of finance makes one wonder if project management (in so far as it partitions and assigns and then has the worries of earned value) can have a similar set of lurking failings. Ah, the tranche, a mechanism to extend ratings above what is actually supported by the underlying instruments.

There seems to be some analog between the tranche mis-thinking and planning versus status measuring that we'll explore further. It's easy to poke fun at the money crowd as there really is no measurable basis that has been agreed upon and that has lasted. Yet, that 'froth' and 'bubbles' come about indicates that there is a problem.

Project management is a little better if is deals with a product that substantially deals with matter (such as a plane). But, as we all know, computer system project management is still more an art than a science despite the best efforts of DOD (US) and Software Engineering Institute, though this work may help prototype the types of control systems that will be needed.

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 -- Stinking realities, such as, lemons problem, dark pools, ... Oh, so much to look at! Does the idiocy have any limit?

04/03/2011 -- Need to look at some background. Too, tranche and trash.

01/01/2011 -- We have four last posts of December under our belt. Also, we lost our chance at setting things right.

11/02/2010 -- Two years 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.

07/23/2009 -- After the bust and the rebound, toxic assets are still a problem due to tranche realities.

06/07/2009 -- Say what?

02/18/2009 -- We can look at why securities become toxic, almost by necessity.

01/27/2009 -- Lessons to be learned (as opposed to learnt), including, by necessity, Ponzi.

11/12/2008 -- Well, things fell apart fairly quickly, starting in September of 2008. By N0vember, there was general spooking. Starting in September, movements toward nationalization sped so fast that it was easy to forget that a Republican administration was still in the White House. Talk about rewarding hubris and moral hazardness!!!!

Modified: 08/01/2013

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

Believability

Evidently, there are some types of engineering that map well through the phases from conception through production where the products get out to the market quickly. Many, who strive for the new and human-less (green field, lights out, ...), want this. Okay, it has been shown to reduce touch labor, if things work.

Think quickly, though; how many of these types of things are hugely complicated in either type or aggregation across the set of sub-entities? How many have serious mission requirements that must be met?

Somehow, one sees that success of this type requires human talent, not easily obtained in many cases, meaning, of course, that it takes years of experience to 'get the arms' around some of these problems.

Ever wonder why the younger successes get their rewards in the 'virtual' world; that is, what do we have involved there but concepts mapping to a phenomenal experience that is ghostly at best (so, it can persist across sessions and the ether space - what substance is there?)? What we see here is that the new generation applies some bunch of tricks recently learned, many times academically, in a situation that is ripe for these tricks, is it not? The older folks could learn much of this, to boot, given the chance.

So many of the 'virtual' successes may appear to have some type of serious foundation, yet in actuality they are not that well founded; it's just that we've allowed opportunism to be rewarded (a whole set of analysis possible there). Oh, we like to put 'entrepreneurship' as a label to cover what is really going on (gosh, do we ever like to coat things platitudinally).

Let's see, so we can have the computer being used to make a large schedule dealing with oodles of activity steps across an enormous period of time and somehow the issues of feedback, analysis, course correction, etc. are overlooked. Well, is it people or the computer that drive a process?

Too, we see the computational put into the place of real experiments. Mind you, this is where we ought to be putting our attention; yet, the issues of quasi-empiricism have to be addressed and are essentially being ignored.

Then, we have the talking PR events.

Where or how does one find the way through the morass? Is there something about this that might point back to a world view (and its associated wet-ware wiring) that is heavily influenced by computer gaming?

Remarks:

12/17/2010 -- These types of issues are continually there for our resolution.

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 -- One has to ask what is the parallel in engineering, and program management, to the fiduciary duty of finance. In regard to the 787 project, 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.

01/11/2008 -- One has to wonder what amount of forethought can make a process successful the first time through. Is it not our experience that a least one pass is required in order to prove the process (somewhat indicating that proof is not in the abstraction rather it is in the realization)?

Even highly trained and capable personnel, such as this medical article discusses, require a check-list to help guide a process through all the variations of a situation. ...

Oh yes, using a checklist from seemingly similar processes can be a good starting point; yet, we have to ask the question, do we not still need a run through? For a plane OEM, does this not involve several things such as flying, working the production issues, and more?

Modified: 12/17/2010

Workmanship

For starters, ‘workmanship’ applies to more than hand (touch) labor; we could talk, as well, about white collar or even capital management, which is supposedly the epitome of everything business. We even expect good workmanship of our medical personnel; one might use due diligence, to boot.

One source of oops does relate to the workmanship issue and the dummying down of work.

One may ask why workmanship may be necessary. NASA has a good take, though the focus is on the effects of bad workmanship on parts. One would think that an OEM, of any sorts, would worry about this; can outsourcing workmanship be guaranteed by inspection only? We’ll have to discuss that more, as evaluation of a product requires some insight into how that product happened to come about.

Dummying down may result from work outsourcing or from process pruning.

In the former case, if the one whose function was outsourced remains to oversee the outsourced work, the role becomes watching and evaluating what comes back in from the outsource. The watching is from a distance usually, unless the outsourcee goofs and needs special attention. The evaluating is of product only, as many times the process evaluation is, or is supposed to be, done by the outsourcee.

In the latter case, some process pruning may be done on stable processes that have been around awhile, when the pruning step has a more complete set of information to work with (we’ll look further at this) than is possible on the first (or even the second) pass of an entirely new process.

Remarks:

01/26/2009 -- Expect more effort in firming up the earned-value (and related) discussions.

12/07/2007 -- The post was partially motivated by observing up-close, on several fronts, the effect of outsourcing in the home-building trades. Coordination at even this local of a level raised issues resulting in effects not seen prior to the outsourcing craze. Then, if one extrapolates from this simple scenario to a mega-outsource as we've seen getting focus, one can begin to why we're in such bad fixes about everywhere one looks. There is a better economic basis than that laid on us by the abstractionists (securitization, as one effect).

Modified: 01/26/2009

What model?

Ah, don't we love medicine and all its supporting science and engineering??

Earlier posts harped about our love of abstractions and about our potential misuses of such.

The last post brought up the idea that morbidity & mortality could be applied to business analysis; actually, implied is that we need some metaphor like this, with a natural basis, to resolve issues of quasi-empiricism.

Well, the idea of (abstraction suggested by) this post may have some power.

Such as, just as a product deficiency may point to some morbid factor in the related process leading back, of course, to the organization(s) and the players thereof, so too can some economic deficiency in that major of organizations, the society, point to some morbidity issue that we ought to understand.

This model might help differentiate how truth engineering, 7 'oops 7, and whosenoseknows might interplay, namely, the theoretical/abstract basis, the operational issues, and measurement, respectively.

Morbidity, mortality

Every week the medical establishment reports on their incidents of morbidity & mortality (ah, we ought to love the M&M) to the CDC. The former relates to what has been seen in terms of illness; the latter relates deaths and probable causes.

But, too, every good medical organization does reviews for their own benefit. Here is an interesting collection that we'll go through looking for parallels with business reviews.

That we see errors in the medical community is not a problem; oops happen when we have 'oops and loops. It's the reporting and analysis that we ought to find commendable (as many of us do); business seems to want to hide oops, though they ought to know that oops are more probable than not when involved with 'oops and loops.

In business, does only the good news flows up? Actually, the process, from the top to the down, ought to ask every subordinate at a particular level to talk one problem in more detail than may be usual; that would be a regular 'oop; then the loop would be to push this down the spiral (helix as organization structure); could we identify oops earlier in their evolution?

Now morbidity has to do with the health of the organization and its resources (and processes). It may be that health is too much assumed; perhaps, too, that is where the quasi-empirical tie comes in; that is, health would be indicated somehow, quantitatively and not, in reports, such as a dashboard; how well-founded, or strong, are those indicators would be one question to always consider; after all, business can (perhaps, ought to) learn to use scientific methods.

Yet, assuming health, then there is the function of the organization; if it is product design and development, then the product would be evaluated; it may be that product deficiencies point to process illness (bringing up, then , morbidity); even if it turns out that some material issue is the culprit, still the healthy process ought to cause identification of the problem, perhaps prior to things getting too awry.

Modified: 11/27/2007

'Oops and loops lead to oops

Even doing nothing can have consequences which might be interesting to look at.

However, we want to look at efforts of doers that have results which imply then that we'll have some 'oops through which the doers need to leap as well as the loops involved with doing it again (any good learning circuit involves feedback and knowing when to quit).

Of course, that oops can follow is to be expected. How well these are managed is a key factor.

Gosh, just parsing through this post so far offers up many nuances that could be explored in terms of the former focus, but we ought to let that lie for the time being. There are many other useful twists to turn.

An example might be driving given some habits that have come to fore with the gaming generation. How many oops occur from inattentiveness of various sorts?

Here are three, of many, recent possible examples of problematic driving.

• going along a familiar route, at an intersection, turn by rote, that is, attention of the uper cortex elsewhere, driving being done in a reactive mode, not observing, finding that there is a blockage in the lane, thankfully being aware enough to stop, how many times is the reaction time too long for safety?
• driving with divided attention, due to too little thought being given to processing the data related to the driving act (text-messaging, etc.), again, in some situations, this can have serious consequences
• not accounting for possible moves by others, such as speeding pass some cars in a queue in a lane, completely ignoring what has motivated the defensive driving moral

Though a route may have been followed many times, each time through is not a replay of the former times. The data related to the current route needs to be processed and handled. Applying rote responses can be problematic, even though, for a whole class of needed actions, we use what has been learned.

As, we can always ask: how often are the situations so novel as to require creative means? Well, one retort would be that it would be first time through.

This little thought could be applied to planning, especially in terms of earned value. Analytics ought not be weighted too heavily the first time through, success with parametrics notwithstanding. It may be that the thread that runs through time (collapse of the graph on the critical path, so to speak) is such that only routine methods are necessary.

Yet, on the first pass, even the first several, one might think that markers and milestones themselves ought to be scrutinized. Nothing would be entirely routine in this scheme.

Of course, driving like that would be extremely tedious. We want speed (and spin).

After thought: can the computer's role as simulator (of which there are several types and uses) remove (or is it reduce?) the necessity of proof in reality?

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.

12/14/2010 -- This post deals with, while not explicitly stating so, issues related to compiled knowledge.

Modified: 03/25/2013

Thanksgiving

One thing that we can be thankful for is that, for the most part, thoughts (or expectations) of easy accomplishment in difficult situations, or of nice solutions to difficult problems, are not rewarded, at least not to the degree we would like.

For those wishes that are rewarded, even if only to some degree and as probably happens more than might be good for us, someone covered for us, about which we ought to be grateful; until our maturity, many played a support role; in maturity, expertise, especially as provided by humans (as resources), abounds in every direction (much of this may be taken without thanks - or is misused - it sure looks that way to the insightful observer); so many examples could apply.

The gilded cage, related to the 'golden touch' (in the modern era, mostly attained through exploiting the substance of many others) is not as wonderful inside as it might look to the onlooker. The better cage gets involved with learning from mistakes so as to push back our known frontiers into useful territory.

Just as flightblogger changed course, so, too, will this blog. The name will be the same as the motivating influence can serve as one, of many, sources for examples to use to describe the issues that are involved in several modern dilemmas, as well as to define alternative attempts at coping with such issues with fair, equitable, truthful, and effective means.

Remarks:

01/18/2009 - We even need to look at why we need finance.

12/03/2008 -- We need to learn what we might be taught about money by Islamic Finance.

11/26/2008 -- The mess grew and grew, fairy dusting indeed.

07/31/2008 -- It's not enough to rant and spout off. So, let's start something constructive by looking at money and what it is.

Modified: 01/18/2009

Poll completion 3

Of the 20 voters in the third poll, most of whom were Suppliers (6, 54%) according to the Role poll, 13 (65%) indicated 2009 as the most likely delivery year. The next most likely year was 2010 (5, 25%).

A tongue-in-cheek 'Before the A350' got 1 vote.

Of those who did the Role poll, the next highest group were the flying afficionados (4, 33%).

Prior polls: First, second.

Modified: 01/11/2008

Third poll series

Note: Poll completion.
Announcements:

- You can support your favorite charity by using bet2give (787 in 2008).
- Also, flightblogger is back; we'll see what information comes from that source; the context will change due to the flightglobal connection.

The poll:

The first poll and second poll are completed. This third poll is a short one to start to get some feedback on opinions about when the 787 might be delivered.

- Based upon the current information that we can know, when will the 787 be delivered? -- We, outside of OEM, only have limited information with which to make a determination about this, however there are many rumors floating around that cover a spectrum: will things go forward nicely such that the product will deliver with only a minor delay (2009/10)? Or, are there more problematic issues that will be difficult to overcome (much later)?

- My role is with -- We won't be able to establish any correlations, however knowing who might be taking the polls might be of interest. We'll continue to have this part of a series.

Disclaimer:
Usual poll etiquette assumed; polls are oriented toward information and not mis / dis-information.
- A casual user cannot double vote on any poll. But, there is no guard against intentional duplicate votes by those who know how.
- There is no consistency checking between polls.
- There is no meta-information about who votes or why.
- There is no way to correlate between the polls, however the 'role' poll allows some indication of interest.

Modified: 01/20/2013

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

Design and design

We all know that the 787 program is dealing with a complicated product that introduces and integrates new technology, that is undergoing development with new processes proving that may prove to be more difficult than not, and that has an unparalleled visibility due to the internet.

So, we will probably see many lessons to be learned. There are several places where one can read about the program, its history, and the status.

It might be a good idea to pull some of these together with commentary, such as the below one. This would establish a viewpoint totally from externally-derived information (meaning, nothing from inside the OEM). The motivation will be explained fully.

For one example, look at this triad: what led to the decision for the 787, some of the debates on technology, initial reactions and responses.

Another example is a recent article on the flightglobal site that talks about some things that are different with the 787 in comparison with earlier planes.

The comparison of two images (which are from two sources, yet they have a common orientation) offers several points of discussion. The images are the following.

• from flightglobal - This is an early design image that illustrates an emphasis on a look that would be natural and suggestive (see Emery's comments on the looks).
  
• from seattlepi - This is a rollout image from July 2007 that shows the as-built condition.
  

It's the disparity between the as-desired and as-delivered view that is of interest as it demonstrates how a real part that needs to meet physical constraints cannot fit exactly the design which may represent some ideal concept.

This disparity as shown here (subtle though it is) is a good metaphor for the management problem (both program and executive); we find this disparity in just about any context involving planning and actuality. Now, an improvement in our processes might be means to know when something is physically attainable. The computer is helping here in allowing better modeling (CAx), improving risk management, and providing the means to bridge cultures (ah, but watch out for those ontologies and other issues)

These are not easy matters that are resolved a priori (hindsight is usually better than foresight, but that in itself is not a given) ; operational aspects (the necessary) related to this type of convergence is one interest of truth engineering.

Modified: 11/24/2007

Poll completion 2

There were fewer votes than before due to a shorter polling period (two weeks) and, perhaps, the absence of flightblogger which was a natural place to leave pointers to the poll.

bet2give has updated its stock (from 787 on time to 787 in 2008).

We'll attempt to have more polls after a brief pause to catch up with all the changes.

Further discussion can follow several tracks, such as how we assess any type of truth (to be itemized).

Modified: 01/20/2013

Another round

Today, a six-month slide was announced for the 787. This was anticipated in the 7oops7 poll (see poll disclaimer), at the flightglobal.com poll (Will the 787 stick to its certification schedule?) and at the bet2give (787 on time).

With the announcement was a disclaimer (Forward-Looking Information is Subject to Risk and Uncertainty) that pertains to the subject of this blog and to truth engineering (Effort and truth - written way before the announcement without access to any inside information).

We will need to revamp the polls and adjust our dialectic.

It can be frustrating to have a highly-detailed plan not converge, except, even the determination of convergence has to be done in retrospect. It's not that we must live looking in the rear-view mirror, but the metaphor is not far off (we're very myopic going forward, at least as far as detail is concerned - foresight cannot be 100%, yet it does exist). For some reason, the lessons behind the mirror metaphor (and there are plenty of morals related to the phenomenon, not 20-20, etc.) goes unlearned (perhaps, because of our understudied talents). All any of us really need to do is reflect back upon our life and the related progressions that we undergo and then try to apply this to the forward-looking situation. We cannot look forward too much but consider some aging person that you know as an example of this progression. As lifeforms, we grow; we peak; we decline. In the case of a program, it's the transition from the growing to the peak that is unknown. If a program is not a replay along any of the important axes, the whole thing has to be a learning experience (experiment, if you would). Well, as we've learned from school, time and repetition are important. Methinks that the notions we learn about problem solving can be somewhat contributive to the issue to boot. So many things to think about.

Remarks:

01/20/2013 -- Changed link for bet2give.

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.

Modified: 01/20/2013

Territory and map

To re-look at an earlier discussion about abstraction's appeal, in which there were references to things and quasi-empiricism, we can use a slightly different terminology (territory, map) that lends itself to both concrete and metaphoric phrasings. Let's use 'territory' and 'map' and look at the problem of confusing the map for the territory. Generally, we don't see the other problem, though it will come into play to boot.

This may seem like a simple approach but hang on while we expand this theme through a few posts here and in the truth engineering thread.

Territory will be used in the sense of things, such as we can walk around our office or manipulate the keyboard. Now, map will be used for the abstractions, of very many types, that we encounter or use daily. An earlier things post mentioned how models and things could be recursively related.

This applies, as well, to territory and map. For instance, a map could be consider part of the things within a territory (say, a Rand McNally book, sitting on a table). As well, a territory could be within a map (say, within a virtual environment [Second Life, etc.] where some operation (mouse) on a graph embedded within the space starts a subprocess).

Hey, wait! What just happened? Well, we'll have to get used to the idea that a map might enclose territory. You see, it can become problematic real quickly to distinguish between territory (in the traditional sense [more below]) of things and territory within maps of things. You see, the computer is (or you could say contains) a map of things, though it, itself, is a thing. 'Second Life' was used in that a virtual experience can be very visceral (look at advanced simulators).

Actually, think of a vivid dream. So, where are the demarcations between the thing and the map. We have been building maps as territory for a long time. What has changed is that now we have this thing called the computer upon which we can build these in a persistent and public manner.

To go way back, we were mostly territory roamers (over nature's terrain) who learned how to have mental maps. As we progressed and extended the natural, we had maps passed through generations via media (books, etc.) and tradition (and, perhaps, other ways - think memes). Along with our progression was increased facility in mathematics (hence the quasi-empirical link) which for the most part relied upon human talent to both apply and to extend.

Ah yes. Since the mid-1900s, there has been another element added: computation and all its abilities (too numerous to go into here, but we'll be looking at this). Now, we have people thinking that their map-based territory/map on the computer may actually be equivalent to the thing-based territory/map. Get the drift.

Well, they are not equivalent in many ways. Can they be? It's interesting how well the effectiveness plays, in some cases. Simulators are used for training in lieu of actual flight time in the thing that is simulated (the airplane). But, one could ask the question, since simulation for re-training is the most common: could the entire education of the pilot be done via simulation?

Obviously not, for the same reason that medicine requires internship and residency for the MD.

Well, it could, but the knowledge of the pilot would be limited by what the simulator experience could show; that, of course, begs the question of whether the perfect simulator could be built.

Ah, that is related to one of the issues in the quasi-empirical discussions.

So, you see, territory and map are not so simple; these, and their relationships, will recur in future posts. (12/18/2008 -- These may be more of a problem in the ungrounded world of finance than in the naturally-based world of engineering and science)

Remarks:

04/19/2011 -- We have to get back to the basics.

09/14/2009 -- We'll need to look at UUUN, as a framework.

08/18/2009 -- Applies for both macro and micro views.

07/05/2009 -- It's taken awhile, but this message is becoming more apropos all the time.

12/18/2008 -- Well, things really fell apart in the 3rd Quarter of 2008. Of course, a technique called the tranche was one factor. Others include the players and the games. Now, games include using mathematics erroneously, as in getting an aura from the use of derivatives (to be discussed further). We'll have to re-address this map/territory issue.

08/01/2008 -- One place where the territory/map dynamic plays (many times with dire consequences) is in the realm of busyness and the market. So, to further the discussion, we will look at money and what it is.

Modified: 04/19/2011

Second poll series

Note: Poll completion.

Announcement: You can support your favorite charity by using bet2give (787 on time).

With the first poll completed, this is a short-time poll so that we can get a couple iterations done by end of October (hopefully, getting useful information).

- I would fly on the 787 -- Let us know how much of a delay you would allow prior to flying the new technology (after its first delivery, of course, meaning post the test phase). This might help gauge the implied risk as seen by the flying public.

- First delivery (787) will be in -- We cannot know this except for a range that might be provided by the OEM. This is your assessment, not what you expect will be announced with the next month or so.

- My role is with -- We won't be able to establish any correlations, however knowing who might be taking the polls might be interesting. We'll continue to have this part of a series.

Disclaimer: Usual poll etiquette assumed; polls are oriented toward information and not mis/dis-information. A casual user cannot double vote on any poll. But, there is no guard against intentional duplicate votes by those who know how. There is no consistency checking between polls. There is no meta-information about who votes or why. There is no way to correlate between the polls, however the 'role' poll allows some indication of interest.

Modified: 01/20/2013

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

Rush job

This is a general comment not particularly mapped to any one event (though links and some comments may appear to have a particular flavor).

We have all seen the types of things related to rushing to meet a deadline, usually as earned-value analysis fails to perform properly. Time for some deliverable starts to run out, things are done more quickly, perhaps corners get cut, the equivalent of the 'triage' of medicine becomes the modus operandi, and so forth.

Of course, in retrospect, after a rushed job a product may very well be okay since only value-added (in the lean terminology) tasks were performed. Others were bypassed. However, such an outcome, assuming that some effort at lean had already been done on the task definitions would essentially be miraculous. So, rushing may very much lead to errors (as probably most can attest).

That some errors only come to fore down the pike is how we learn. Usually, we expect that the cause is looked at and improvements made. Yet, the first pass through any process change ought to be consider experimental and hypothetical (this lesson seems to not have sunk in, in general, as much as will be necessary). Yet, things that only happen now and then need to be even more conditionally handled (say, new airplane program -in which case, the regime of testing in actuality and of correcting faults is the safety net if done correctly) than those things that recur regularly.

Skimping on process (such as, according to the book and not expecting to have to handle any unforeseen contingencies) is not what one would expect to be the prevailing attitude on a major product that is not only of high market value but also is high on the criticality scale (plus having roles related to the human imagination).

Part of it is our fault (yes) for not understanding technology (but how can we without the appropriate information?) and evaluating things on the surface (even though later analysis shows any problems with substance).

However, we also expect those that do and those that have the authority are taking their responsibilities seriously even it it causes schedule slides. But, again that's our fault: for not understanding that foresight is not 20-20; not knowing that any project that spans more than a limited time (whose cardinality may vary by several factors) needs course corrections (a flying metaphor is perfect; would you want to be on a plane where all the instructions for the whole flight were put in as an initial condition and then it just played out like a record? Silly, isn't it?).

Was there a missed chance the past year or so for a particular thing to be a good demonstration of extremely proficient project management? What glory is there for allowing a mindset that does not consider things in a balanced manner? This seems almost like 'look , ma, aren't I wonderful?'.

Let's see, what is one problem? Well, engineers who become managers say that they are 'recovering engineers' (for those manager who are not from engineering ask an engineer to explain). Indeed.

It's a case of a mind going from handling the specifics of nature to the generics of pseudo-control and from performing extremely difficult manipulations of our models of nature to another role that may or may not be as necessary as we think: playing well on the screen (talking heads), smoothing over troubled waters (back slapping), thinking of money (mostly how to keep it in the pocket - albeit that whole abstraction is something that we'll be looking at more closely - abstraction in the sense of what is a 'buck' exactly? - yet, this role can result in accumulations that could be considered obscene), worrying more about surface issues rather than substance (some might call this air brushing), and much more (oh, I forgot, decider).

Management may rule and control employees; they have not succeeded in taming nature. Also, not many have bridged well the ontologies that exist between those who are involved with the 'real' plus their lower-level managers who have a good sense of what's real and those who are in the highly abstracted world of the executive. Earned-value determination requires more than an accounting overview.

In the realm of technology, we will need to get management (and decisions) to more of an science/engineering stance than we see now; the computer will help; yet, the human element will still be a strong factor (and engineers are mostly of nerdish variety, many mindsets think - yet, how to get a better operational balance is still in the works, systems engineering is one of the new pegs); truth engineering needs attention; and so forth.

Yet, in the realm of imagination (motivation, etc.), which is a tremendous human trait, we may not get beyond the art (which insightful management strives to be very effective in) despite our best efforts to engineer the thing (in itself). Hence, expect that management will continue. Besides, the roles connected to management may be a necessity (they are never anywhere near sufficiency).

As one columnist noted recently, managers need to be leaders, rather than pirates, in order to help us through the complexities that we face.

Remarks:

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

09/02/2009 -- Lean assumes a current framework which can be improved. That the process is still effective during the change can be checked easily. However, if it is not still effective or we do not have a stable framework, then we were, by necessity, in the undecidable state.

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: 01/19/2011

Poll completion

The time for the first poll has elapsed allowing a pause for interpretation and comment. The former can only have an anecdotal nature; the latter might to lead toward further polls that will be of interest and of use.

The 'role' poll will be part of subsequent polls.

These polls started around the time that the flightblogger posts were dealing with unannounced problems. Many thought that these would be covered in a scheduled status report (9/5 - indeed the topics were addressed somewhat). Usual poll etiquette was assumed, so we expect that the intent was to provide an opinion and not disinformation.

The first poll (started before 9/5) dealt only with the May 2008 date. 'Will this date be met?' is a very reasonable question (otherwise, how does one smooth over issues related to rushing the job?). Evidently, those who voted (124) thought so.

• 37 (30% - for yes) with 87 (70% - for no) - see the third poll
  

The second poll (started before 9/5) dealt with the first flight (FF) date which was changed at the telecon. Polls 1 and 2 did not start at the same time, hence the difference in count. However, if FF is after the 2007 year-end, then delivery (functional, of course, and not just a show vehicle) in May 2008 would be a problem.

• 28 (26% - before end of year) 80 (74% - before mid-2008)
  

The third poll is of interest as all of the four groups were represented with the majority being observers.


Modified: 10/2/2007

A new game

Americans like to take risk. In fact, the whole aura (or ought we say illusion) of capitalism is that those who take risks get the rewards. Everywhere we see people taking risks. Yet, a whole lot of those have someone to bail them out when things go awry.

People who venture into the wilds expect that a rescue team will come to their aid, if needed. Actually, insurance protects against reasonable risk. Wall Street (several definitions here, but think of those who get $100,000s [multiply] based upon questionable evaluations but who do not pay back any of this when things go awry later (you know, a plane flies for years - those who design and build the thing are on the hook for the longer time - why do we let the financial types take short-term profits?) has the Fed that can bail it out even to the extent of rewarding lapses into the 'moral hazard' area (there have been many instances of this, folks, and recent events continue the trend).

What if there were no one to bail you out when you got into trouble? Many have experienced such a situation. And, one of the black marks on the human race might be that too many are still experiencing this.

Okay. To back up a minute. More than Americans take risks; it's human nature. The main problem is that undue risk can lead to waste and other things that are not desired. Someone pays for rescuing people from their risky behavior. But, who is to define what risks apply where and to what extent?

Risks and their types are many. Test pilots, and similar roles, take calculated risks. Some say that getting up in the morning is risky. But, even staying in bed can be problematic from several sides, such as health (bed sores, eventually), environment (many example here), etc. So risk is something that we manage.

The flying public doesn't want risks of a certain type, so there is a general interest in things like a new approach to flying. Some changes, like process [supply chain] or material [composite], are not as problematic as they would seem, as we can test these things, assuming several things: for one, that the related time lines are not being truncated inordinately.

Time? Yes, it is important in this situation. There is more of an abundance of this with the proper perspective, notwithstanding marketing pressures. When time becomes short, risk can rise without a balancing act, such as a corresponding diminishing of the mission.

The bigger issue may be that certain frameworks [modeling], which we are putting into place as proxies of something that is real, may have taken more prominence than might be warranted (we'll look at the appeal of abstraction and talk about how risky that can be).

Forgive the metaphor, but expansions upon a house of cards is shaky from any perspective. How so? We will be trying to explain this, hopefully with some success.

'Game-changing' of any type, carries risk. A company risking itself is what freedom allows (and the Board of Directors, and hopefully the investors, and ... --- you get the drift?). That any of that risk falls out to the financial types; well, we can only hope it's done smartly.

That any of that risk falls out to the flying public is not acceptable. Yet, there will continue to be risks even after all tests are done.

Has anyone put these together in a coherent, and readily accessible, fashion? Perhaps, they ought to be made more visible in this current context.

Remarks:

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

09/14/2009 -- We'll need to look at UUUN, as a framework.

01/28/2009 -- Earned value issues, and finance's basis, 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: 01/19/2011

Flightblogger and more

A recent news report was discussed in an airliners.net thread (whistle blower issue, more later). Among the comments was a reminder that investment companies have analysts who specialize in these topics. Too, several reporters (several old media types) watch what is going on. The question arises as to whether 'New Media' (to be defined further, as flightblogger had a discussion related to this) can play a role. Jon was helping to explore this.

The underlying motivation in this current blog, as expressed in the seeds, is a new look at information, especially that which has advanced computational support, and how we might evaluate it. The particular focus is due to its interest and potential, perhaps, to provide access to real-world experiences and backward-looking analysis.

Isn't the world watching things unfold?

Remarks:

08/24/2016 -- Boeing is 100, this year.

04/07/2012 -- Flightblogger ends, as least, Jon's watch. Some issues raised five years ago are still apropos. The context may have changed a little, yet, perhaps now is time to re-address the themes.

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

05/17/2009 -- This whole issue will be re-addressed as the flight test results unfold. For one, the new media's impact has grown the past couple of years. Too, plenty of the older media have stopped paper output and only have a web-presence. Yet, how all this will evolve is anyone's guess. There is still the basic issue: how to verify on-line content. Wikipedia's known problems are one example. The issue is not just hoaxing; bad information can propagate quite rapidly; many times the genie, once let loose, cannot be put back into the bottle.

01/11/2009 -- Re-format back into the usual Remarks scheme. which was lost with the 10/20/08 update. It's pure coincidence that we have a 1/11/08 and a 1/11/09 entry for Remarks. As said on 11/2/07, the issues of 'sock puppetry' (and how Jon's blog got this notion started) remain to be discussed.

10/20/2008 -- More evidence as in this article at the Chicago Tribune detailing the evolution of the flightblogger. As the story says, people within Boeing risked their jobs (and did not honor their proprietary agreement) to contact Jon. Hence, that photos, which are really the property of Boeing, came into the possession of Jon is of interest from several sides.

That Boeing, seemingly, has capitulated the issue is something to discuss (albeit, that what has been characterized as a 'potemkin' event occurred is puzzling, too).

How there will be many ways for the new media to unfold is another topic that'll get some attention.

01/11/2008 -- We have more evidence now that Jon is real. Expect, at some point, more discussion about why this might have been an issue to a viewpoint based entirely on bits portrayed on the screen (representative, you know, of many types of 'virtual' experiences where our need for truth evaluation rest upon fairly weak measures and weaker substance) and critical analysis of content.

11/2/2007 -- flightblogger is back; we'll see what information comes from that source; the context will change due to the flightglobal connection.

The issues about how we identify sock-puppets remain.

9/22/2007 -- The flightblogger is offline until further notice (see Jon's explanation, Reply 5 by IAD787, on airliners.net). The airliner.net thread looked at possible reasons, such as the Comments getting out of hand. Jon said that he had no pressure to take it down. We look forward to the resurrection.

In the meantime, topics to discuss here are several. The seeds need to be updated. The first poll will expire shortly. At that time results from the existing 3 polls will be summarized; other polls will start with a role poll attempting to show who is interested.

With 26 votes, most were 'other (just interested)' followed by 'a Supplier' and encompassed a large majority.

Modified: 08/24/2016

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

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

Concerning the polls

The polls are simple opinion samplings and are not scientific by any means. Usual poll etiquette is assumed (see Disclaimer below). First pass at polls is closed.

If there is an interest (as determined by comments), a more rigorous approach will be tried.

A summary of the vote about May 2008 (closes 9/27 8:22 AM): Date, Total (I think so, Praying for, Maybe not, Nope)

• 9/27/2007, 124 (25, 12, 19, 68)
  
• 9/23/2007, 122 (24, 12, 19, 67)
• 9/19/2007, 116 (23, 11, 17, 65)
  
• 9/15/2007, 100 (19, 9, 15, 57)
• 9/11/2007, 87 (16, 9, 12, 50)
• 9/9/2007, 75 (13, 8, 11, 43)
• 9/6/2007, 56 (6, 7, 10, 33)
  
• 9/5/2007, 47 (3, 5, 9, 27)
• 9/4/2007, 30 (3, 6, 6, 15)

A summary of the vote about First Flight will be before (closed 9/21 7:31 AM) : Date, Total (Nov 2007, Dec 2007, Jan 2008, Mid-2008)

• 9/21/2007, 108 (11, 17, 34, 46)
• 9/19/2007, 105 (11, 17, 33, 44)
  
• 9/15/2007, 89 (11, 14, 28, 36)
• 9/11/2007, 76 (10, 13, 24, 29)
• 9/9/2007, 63 (9, 7, 22, 25)
  
• 9/6/2007, 47 (6, 5, 16, 20)
  
• 9/5/2007, 38 (6, 5, 12, 15)
• 9/4/2007, 21 (6, 2, 8, 5)

A summary of the vote about My role is with (closes 10/31 5:54 AM) : Date, Total (an OEM, a Supplier, an Airline, other (just interested))

• 9/27/2007, 31 (3, 9, 2, 17)
• 9/23/2007, 30 (3, 9, 2, 16)
• 9/19/2007, 22 (3, 4, 1, 14)
  
• 9/15/2007, 7 (2, 1, 0, 4)

The 'role' poll is new; perhaps, those who voted before will return to update their role. Future poll combinations will include a 'role' poll.

One topic to discuss will be how many polls, of two-week durations and of this type, could there be the next few months to a year, or so, that would be interesting and, perhaps, useful.

Disclaimer: Usual poll etiquette assumed; polls are oriented toward information and not mis/dis-information. A casual user cannot double vote on any poll. But, there is no guard against intentional duplicate votes by those who know how. There is no consistency checking between polls. There is no meta-information about who votes or why. There is no way to correlate between the polls, however the 'role' poll allows some indication of interest.

Modified: 09/28/2007

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

Unknowns and unknowns

Generally, our progress involves adding to what we know and what we can do; engineering is a fairly systematic application of what we know about what we can control. Yet, there are unknowns which may vary in importance from 'of no consequence' to 'we better pay some attention.'

There was some mention yesterday (09/05/07 conference call, see flightblogger) about not knowing what-is-what until you get to where you have to deal with what. This sort of suggests that part of a schedule would be actually giving time to work several things through a process before trying to lean-and-efficient the thing. Otherwise, you're talking only in the abstract and allowing those things-in-themselves to have little ground. This can bite one.

Which brings up not knowing what we don't know. The financial types have been discussing the 'black swan' theory as it pertains to our inclination to over layer what we don't know with what we have known. That is, do we need to be better about expecting the real unexpected?

This issue does apply to engineering, as well, in particular when what we know is either relaxed or we make mixes of what we know in a new fashion. In the first sense, unknowns will be more problematic in less stable domains; in the second sense, using lab results and making sure that extreme values are tested are a couple, of many, techniques that we have come up with.

In any case, time is usually not of overriding importance unless you're heading toward a crash in the wall. But, under such conditions, one wouldn't be experimenting with fundamental control issues. 'However long it takes' is the real key for handling unknowns.

Remarks:



04/07/2012 -- Flightblogger ends, as least, Jon's watch. Some issues raised five years ago are still apropos. The context may have changed a little, yet, perhaps now is time to re-address the themes.


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.

09/02/2009 -- We need to assess wind direction, many times.

05/27/2009 -- That we have topsy-turvy needs to be addressed more fully in both an epistemologic and an operational sense.

01/27/2009 -- Lessons to be learned (as opposed to learnt), including, by necessity, Ponzi.

06/14/2008 -- Early posts were related to engineering, but the tone of the blog now covers the gamut. What we see with engineering can be tested since science is available; what we see with finance and marketing will continue to be more problematic and therefore of interest.

Modified: 04/07/2012