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

Product safety

A new connotation can be made about this concept given the event of last week (trial explosives found in cargo shipments).

The cost of safely moving products? Was this even considered in full or did the model assume an ideal, and unrealistic, situation?

Is this not an oops or what?

Does not making it at home (not out-housing) become more feasible when the true costs are considered? As with any abstracted model, the 'pure' theory of international trade does not take into account any human quality. No, people are modeled as rational agents. Now, that's fine, except whose rationality is taken to be the model?

Sheesh, everyone papered over with some type of mediocre view. Is this not how business runs? Is it not why employees are considered just a resource pool only there for exploitation?

Oh, yes, the one star? The CEO, of course.

'market' ideology is like any other that makes a bunch of assumptions that match up with the belief system. Again, whose belief system?

What we need is a mindset that considers all aspects, albeit with rankings and risk analysis. Actually, the basis would be science and engineering. But, a heavy emphasis on people would be part of the system, to boot.

Now, how to attain such is the problem that will continue to be the focus.

Remarks:

11/08/2010 -- A technical look is necessary.

Modified: 11/08/2010

Apps and oops

The rage nowadays is 'apps' which is nice to see as it points to more being aware of computational ubiquity.

Unfortunately, apps, the concept, applies to commercial products, as well. Like cars, where we seem to be the on-going lab subjects. That is, until more is learned about how apps are firmed up (see apps and truth). There are many examples.

...

The US DOD has weakened itself by using Internet apps. First of all, the IP did not have to be let loose (there were plenty of other protocols). Then, the whole idiocy of loose control boggles the mind.

...

Would it not be nice to see more management 'apps' that remove the wetware which can be so problematic? Or, do we need to see these stars with their strutting demeanor?

...

Having been in computation, software and mathematics, since the 1960s, it's very interesting to see the evolution of new platforms. Sometimes, it does seem as if it's a new world (every generation would like to - and does - think so). Yet, it is not, folks.

Every platform may have differences in framework(s) and particulars, yet, the underlying issues are the same, have been from way before computing was possible (or, back when hand work was the norm - 10 years to do what now is done in a blink of an eye), and will continue. That we have to grapple with the basics is the lesson before us.

The emergence of 'apps' and the related mania provides the opportunity.

...

'oops' ought to be sandbox'd and limit'd. The economy is in a shambles because we allowed the best-and-brightest (encourage by the older fat cats) to push out apps that stunk from the beginning as if they were derived (pun) via deus ex machina. More likely, these were extractions from the nether regions (aerated, to boot).

Remarks:

09/28/2010 -- It nice to see the IEEE weigh in. Notice: sensors galore, drive in the loop, ...

07/02/2010 -- Stunned? Hubris or stupidity (or, are they the same?). Meaning what? Well, this is a simple little thing, of no real consequence. How many problems lurk amongst all of those computational elements that have been spread around the economic world? Who cares?

Modified: 09/28/2010

Oops and models

It is always good to see someone express thoughts well, especially those dealing with important subjects, such as Oops and NoOops. Recently, a New York Times opinion'er hit the mark; Nicholas D. Kristof wrote (July 3, 2008): In short, millions of things could go wrong. But when there’s a good model in place, they often go right.

Now, this blog deals with the fact that 'oops and loops must lead to oops, by necessity. 7 'oops 7 started with an engineering focus of a particular flavor, then branched to finance (the credit crunch is going to be looked at here from several sides - fortunately, the WSJ has been probing deeply into the current conundrums), and now finally is covering the spectrum of human life (with one particular having a medical angle - due to a personal interest in bio-medical engineering). However, the airplane particulars will remain in the discussion for purposes of illustration since a major program will be moving along a test axis shortly.

If you now know the context of the above-referenced article, we can understand the notion that 1M things could go wrong is true in many situations. And we can understand that control (or, risk management, if you would) requires a model. So, the types of things that help us live better and accomplish predictably are the concern of science and engineering.

Engineers help us to improve things, essentially by working the models. There are modern models that have a whole lot of history. But there is one thing to note in regard to models: the computational frameworks are still in their infancy, comparatively, and quasi-empiricism has more of a basis than many realize.

Remarks:

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

Modified: 11/20/2008

NoooP and aah

This blog has dealt with ‘oops and loops of many types. As we know, ‘oops and loops, by necessity, lead to oops. One question is the size of that necessity. Too, some oops are more painful than others; hopefully, when the potential pain is large, we'll be more careful.

Engineering is usually careful; recent financial events don't confirm that is so in the monied realms; mostly, this seems to rise from the fact that not all share the pain equally.

But, there is another side of the coin which is larger in our affairs. Let’s call that side NoooP, as in no oops, which bring on aahs. Engineering’s goal is to bring in more aahs via NoooP. Of course, that sharing in the aahs differs, as does the pain on the other side, will bring up some discussion.

One might say that we can reduce the necessary aspect of oops through proper analysis and methods which is a story that the risk people have sold to management. Too, there are sufficiency conditions that will keep NoooPs up and oops down.

Now, given our nature, it is very easy for hubris to set in if all we see is the NoooP side as then a growing chance for oops may be overlooked. And, hubris can apply to engineering, especially that of the financial type.

What other than hubris could lead rational people to think that slicing and dicing junk (tranche and more) would make it other than it is? Is that not like putting lipstick on a pig and expecting something other?

So, expect there to be more coverage of NoooPs on all sides to balance the view and to allow appreciate of those aahs that abound more than not, oops notwithstanding.

Remarks:

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

11/18/2008 -- More progress in testing is reported. Too, financial oops were very abundantly around in the fall of 2008.

Modified: 05/21/2009

Oops and types

We have seen how oops are related to 'oops and loops and are studied by various engineering foci, such as control, risk, etc. Oops can be small or large, with a wide range of consequences.

One problem that we face is that nothing is really a replay of the past; the PLM mindsets need to remember this. Too, those who look to Lean need to understand better what is behind this thing.

So, given that we're living a big 'experiment' in an unknown lab, we have to be careful, especially if our decisions affect others. It's like this, folks. Look, keep your oops (however motivated and whatever you might think is best for me) to yourself. If I want to do something stupid, I'll let you know.

Just this past week, I read several articles in many publications that deal with oops. We'll get into each of these; here is a brief listing.

• WSJ - Fed Insider Questions Programs Designed to Ease Credit Crunch --- oh no, we taxpayers are bailing out junk'ies. --- Yes, certain types seem to be favored by the Fed. Hey, Ben, your decisions have made my life miserable of late. Thanks. Oh, only slightly so, by the way, yet I'm not pleased with the decisions. Get your head out of the 30s, the dynamics are different.

• WSJ - Trying to Solve the Oil Puzzle - poor Congressman is trying to fathom the multiple layers of speculation driving the oil market and getting grief from fat cats who say that it is supply and demand --- We probably could use a lesson from mathematics here. Who has used any derivative (calculus, not financial gaming) beyond the 2nd on a regular basis (note the use of regular)? So, given that we humans always 'bubble' over, one way that the Fed (or whoever ought to play this role) could control things is by removing any layer of middle man beyond a certain level. It isn't that hard, folks. No, those who have fat pockets have been good at misusing what 'capitalism' is all about.

• IEEE Spectrum - The New Economics of Semiconductor Manufacturing -- mainly about applying Lean to the clean room making of chips and more --- Gosh, remember how the US management went to Japan with hats in hand and all agog about something that came out of the western ontology - then they found out that it wasn't a magic bullet from zen or something like that - turns out that much of Lean has to do with empiricism (which can only be quasi, guys, don't be stupid there) and experimentation. Yes, any program (787 or A350 [oh, we'll be on time!!!]) that makes grand claims years in advance is suspect by definition; and, looking to others doing the work as being able to pull off magic?? What can I say, but tsk tsk.
  

• IEEE Spectrum - The Hunt for the Kill Switch - about the possibility of outsourced work allowing too much power to someone else who can then come back and use it against you --- In this case, it's the real problem of chips being manipulated so as to allow malfeasance. But, it could apply everywhere. Globalization is a fat cat thing, folks. Gosh, are we to allow the idiots to ignore individuation and its use? Okay, everyone on the planet ought to be economically supported; but, globalization has been more about moving things around in order to reduce cost (more for the pockets of the few) than real development.
  

Oh, we could 'lean' the executive suite, come to think of it. They need to learn more science and less 'demigod-ness' for the sake of the rest of us.

Remarks:

06/15/2009 -- Globalization, and capitalism, now a dirty word, according to one in private equity.

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

Modified: 06/15/2009

Oops examples

We can find many examples of oops in a lot of places, as we know that we cannot have 'oops and loops without oops. Perhaps, we'll use enumeration of types via examples as a theme for awhile, rather than just beat on the engineering and finance themes.

For starters and nodding to the fact that this week is the third year anniversary of an event that had oops all around, let's use examples from a divestiture (big word for split) of a division out of a company.

How to start? Well, let's just look at a few potential types; we'll continue the theme for awhile until exhaustion, both of the subject and the blog writer.

In terms of the third-year re-look, let's do it from perspectives of various players.

• -- Manager (spawning company) who started all this - oops, or is it oh-oh?
• -- Worker who could have transferred but did not for whatever reason - oops, I don't have as good insurance and pension benefits as before
• -- Managers (who spawned off and lined pockets) - oops, I should have waited a little before dumping stock as it did bubble there momentarily (ah, but now it's down again)
• -- Worker who raised ethical concerns - oops, no one cared as the managers running the split were allowed two-tongued stances for many weeks
• -- Management chain - oops, look at what those above me got
• -- The general employee who got mail - oops, where is my piece of the pie?
• -- The rejected who got DHL - oops, what happened?
• -- Union worker - oops, what?
• -- Worker who didn't accept offer - oops, ouch!! (thrown out by the ear with a swift kick from a black-booted thug)

Of course, there are the antitheses of the oops, non-oops if you would.

• -- Financial-ers - oh, what wonder color Wichita money has!! Let's get more, ah Hawker!!
• -- Retiree/double dippers - oh, great retiree insurance! two paychecks!! (Who cares that the majority is scraping by with less after this event's take-aways.)
• -- Worker who did transfer and retired later - oh, isn't it great!!
• -- Managers who didn't suck up and were pushed out -- oh, it's nice to have a conscience

Naturally, there are many more. Care to add some?

Or, leave stories in the comments or e-mail them: Shattered dreams, That stinks.

Remarks:

03/15/2013 -- Some controversy in the way SPR fired some people. See Weagle.

05/30/2012 -- As covered by flightblogger.

05/04/2012 -- A recent filing relates to this theme.

12/23/2010 -- Do oops continue to emerge?

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

06/18/2008 -- Not to be confused with American Dreaming.

Modified: 03/15/2013

Another oops generator

One 7'oops7 thread, related to finance, uses gaming as a metaphor with 'fiction' being a major element. Types of trading as have evolved in the commodities markets are problematic. Why? Well, there are several reasons, but chief ones would be the spread of the computational flavor with its complexity and no accountable resource except for the poor suckers who lose.

William F. Buckley was right. "Stop!"

A recent WSJ article on the problem quoted research results and used the example of wheat. It is estimated that for a particular crop (future crop, mind you), there are twice as many holders of contracts for this crop than can be met.

Got that? Let's say the crop is going to be 100 bushels, and we have 1 bushel per contract. Well, there are 200 contracts that think that they own the crop, collectively.

How has such idiocy come about? Such spiraling is a natural consequence of taking speculation too far (see Minsky's ideas about this).

And, we do not know how wide-spread is this type of foolishness. You see, it goes way beyond those physical things we deal with as commodities.

In finance, thankfully, we had SOX to address this type of fictional book cooking. That the underlying mechanisms are supposedly founded on advanced mathematics does not remove the fiction, actually it exacerbates the problem.

One irrationality involved here is that when the crop does come about, what we will have will be higher prices due to the shortage of supply. Oh yes, the market works it out is the tenet.

Folks, those who like to line their pockets play the same sort of game with leverage. That is, from a finite collection of items with value (and these can be many types), they blow up to states that claim to be hyper-values and that are essentially hot-air. Perhaps, those who use the adage that the 'whole is greater than the sum of its parts' understand.

By the way, a physical product, and its development, can have similar problems; yet, engineering, hopefully, can keep things more grounded.

The financial folk can be similarly reined in, given that we apply the proper insights.

Remarks:

11/04/2010 -- Big Ben is still putting us at risk and trashing the savers.

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

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

08/24/2008 -- An example where we saw a 9 to 1 increase off of $100K was equivalent to a reserve ration of 10% which can be considered a historically low figure for the reserve or a high multiplier. This notion is related to leveraging in the sense of creating something out of nothing from one view. Of course, as argued before, the lowering of the reserve ration goes hand in hand with increasing use of mathematics through growing computational prowess which can exacerbate the Minsky ponzi tendencies, as we've seen of late. If we're going to model the economy via computation, why not base it on some physical analog, like energy (no endorsement intended)?

Modified: 11/04/2010

Oops abound

Not only do oops happen, they seem to abound. (WSJ 2/22/08, Technology 1, Common Sense 0). Some are truly unexpected; many are related to risk.

Let's see, isn't it the basic tenet of capitalism, from some views which are not, by the way, that to which we ought to have undying loyalty, that the spoils goes to those who take risk?

Now, to see where such a comment might be going, what if that same attitude was applied to real life events, such as flying? First, the manufacturer knows that risk elements are to be minimized, not just left to their own devices. Too, those who provide services related to flying know that they cannot push risks too far because of safety and cost.

Yet, in the economy, some aura that is best described as more amenable to Las Vegas, or Reno, than to normal affairs has taken hold.

Of course, what is risk and how ought we manage this thing are topics that require continual study and discussion. Whole disciplines deal with the matter.

Again, let's use an example from engineering. A recent IEEE Control Systems Society publication surveys the state, and continuing issues, of inertial stablized platform (ISP) technology. By the way, how this relates to the topic is the a plane can be an example of an ISP application in action. One comment alluded to the decades of work that have gone into improving the state of affairs in regard to the ISPs.

Yet, there are plenty of problems to solve. Two key issues are measurement and control. That is, like ourselves (we are another example of an ISP) who have to sense and respond, so do things that move intelligently. Nowadays, there is no component used for the ISP task that is not computationally influenced, whether it is more embedded piece of circuity than software.

In regard to oops, we get to where we trust technology too much. The WSJ (see above) story talked about a truck going awry and getting into a messy situation, because the driver followed GPS instructions (evidently, though, not paying attention to warnings) rather than responding to visual cues that things were getting problematic.

Ah, truth engineering deals with this sort of thing, in part.

In a complex project, one can somewhat sympathize with managers who let things go awry due to too much reliance on the computational, in particular pointing fingers here at both PLM and CAE. Yet, one wonders how many engineers were thrown out of the office or downright disciplined under some guise of not being a team player? What is that old story of the team of lemmings running over the cliff?

So, 'oops and loops lead to oops. They are inevitable. Yet, unreasonable risk taking (or even reasonable when stakes are high) are not to be rewarded; actually, we need to take back some bonuses made to financial folks the past few years.

How about putting a lag on some financial rewards of a longer duration, like years? Any other dampers that we could think of?

After all, most of us don't retire after childhood. When one looks at the situation with the boomers, who are significant due to their massive generational imprint, one sees problems arising as the boomer retirement period advances, the study of which ought to helps us to learn a few lessons.

Remarks:

01/09/2009 -- The year end was very interesting; now, we need to show that oops help us to learn.

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

Modified: 12/09/2009

Q2 query

It is interesting that no one has participated in the bet2give poll on whether the first 787 'test-flight' will be before the 'end of Q2, 2008'.

Earlier polls (787 in 2008 closed, 787 on time closed) had activity that was fairly representative of the situation.

If everything was going well, would there have been the overblown reaction reported in the S-PI about an accidental incursion into the 787 area by visitors?

Modified: 01/20/2013

Oops happen

Image from flightblogger

Using the vernacular, we can mostly expect 'oops. How we handle these is what makes for progress or not.

One example might be the above particular image provided by an OEM in an announcement of their new offering.

It's an image of a plane, a composited image that shows people standing in front of the thing. Well, some might think that the plane existed and was ready to carry the parties to some destination. Except, on closer reading one sees a time line that is in the future.

Images, such as this, might be okay on paper, where credits and explanations can be given. Unfortunately, even with that medium, the text may not be there; but, assuming some text, it may be too small to read.

Let's see, the diameter is 73 inches or so which is only 5" or so greater than a predecessor . Yet, it stands much taller than expected.

Is it that the perspective of the people and the plane don't match? Of course, the idea may have been to emphasize the plane.

What is the height? One could attempt different schemes, such as using the engine size or the people's height.

Why the issue? In this day of advanced techniques that can alter photos or that can generate artificial images with near-perfect realism, ought we to have some protocols to tip off the viewer as to what is what?

Economics and engineering

Perhaps Minsky's ideas have some use here. The basic notion is that what we see as the financial gaming is essentially unstable. Yet, a whole industry has arisen the past few decades to support the gaming and to try to put a rational face on it.

Well, folks. Let me remind you that this infrastructure is of recent heritage; the more advanced aspects of it required computers and securitization (already noted as suspect). The one truth of the whole thing is that the mechanisms have helped oodles of monies to flow from the pockets of the hapless to those of the favored few (those with the wherewithal and capital to attempt the gaming 'wins' (very much a zero-based game)).

This blog has noted such a characteristic may occur with programs and projects, to boot.

So, key factors are stabilization, how we obtain this, and what constitutes reasonable variations (and, yes, frothy-ness and volatility).

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).

05/22/2012 -- FB will be a focus for discussion.

01/26/2009 -- Now a new day and way to consider these matters.

12/13/2008 -- Much water has passed under the bridge. But, new types of revelations continue to arise.

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

08/19/08 -- In reviewing the types of gaming done in finance, one has to wonder if Minsky's model has some parallel with the phase changes that we see in matter.

Modified: 08/01/2013

Middle and out

This little blurb is part of a continuing pro-log leading to explicit analysis of the problems related to earned value in the situation of globalized organizations, abstracted models, and a gaming-based ontology.

Most engineers will be familiar with the concept of the middle. Good projects work middle-out.

To see this, let's use the computer as an example. In the modern era when computers are everywhere (are we tired of ubiquitous, yet?), we can think of the interfaces between hardware and software. At the boundary, there are always problems. Who drives? Software? Hardware?

In a project that is defining a new 'system' both the hardware and the software must gel at some point. Of course, the latter is more malleable (we like to think; changes have consequences, though). But, hardware can change. Analysis at the middle-out position has allowed successful convergence many times. Though, one must remember that iterations may be necessary in order to really optimize a design.

Now, in projects, middle-out makes a lot of sense as a means to describe what goes on between levels and organizations. It is hard to attain such a balance for many reasons, not the least of which is that the analytical demands that need to be met are operationally-based from current work (when doing something for the first few times).

Systems engineering was developed to look at these types of issues. But, it needs to work with a whole lot of other disciplines.

In modeling, we like to use top-down and bottom-up. That top-down world loves power, and the exhibitions that result through the use of power. The bottom-up? Well it's not so easily described given the morass of the pits.

That is, the top-down involves a movement from the one to the many. The particular spread as things fan out can vary widely. Throughout the modern realm, there have been experiments with depth and breadth of this fanning.

Perhaps, the emphasis on the top-down has come about through its efficacy in many situations. It has been shown to work if there is a sufficient number of willing effectors (with characteristics as being healthy, cared for, etc.) at the levels below the top-most node (CEO, etc.).

That brings up an aside that the top-down view that doesn't try to keep its lower levels healthy is more than suspect; it is the major bane preventing an economic expansion that is our right. To wit, a whole lot of problems related to pay (hugh imbalance), motivation (hands-on needs to get respect back - how do we do this?), etc.

Also, technology requires a different balance. The top-down view does not, nor can it, know detail (SOX notwithstanding, which is basically financial in motivation). This is something to look at; abstraction has a purpose; things-in-themselves, well, some have purpose prior to any of our wanglings, but they can out-rule abstractions.

So, what are we to do? Well, for one thing, be aware of the dynamics and manage accordingly.
At the top, let the Board of Directors be more than figure-heads. Get a CTO involved who really knows and isn't just a gamer. Elsewhere, don't expect that the military model of command-control applies everywhere.

At the bottom (and between), work for innovation and trust. Preserve performers. Provide mechanisms for continuing improvements. Nothing new. Except, don't expect to be a company that people will flock to if you don't apply your principles (don't just talk them).

In a new product, who would support the middle-out position between the business views driving the motivation and the end-of-the-chain (poor slob, getting all the grief; trying to manage expectations that are possibly not realizable?) people?

Well, if one is going to argue for systems engineering, it would have to be independent of, and not accountable to, those driving the requirements, would it not? That is, technical projects get in trouble due to too few technical resources of an integrative nature being at hand as they are needed. Lean is partly a culprit (it works ex post facto in making improvements).

Remarks:

01/15/2012 -- A new wrinkle: perhaps, the middle way toward the unfolding of potential for all.

11/30/2011 -- Of late, there has been an OWS movement. It seems to not be hierarchical; that irritates the top-downers who like to think that their controlling viewpoint is truth. Have we ever seen a true middle out that respects the bottom up? I don't know. Even in science, you have those who think that theory trumps. Engineers are smart enough to know better. Ah, people and their foibles.

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.

08/31/2009 -- We're going to look at this, again, from the finance view as we expand theoretics and technicals via an econoblog.

07/05/2009 -- We have to see how the computer (and computerism) influences this.

06/15/2009 -- Globalization, and capitalism, now a dirty word, according to one in private equity.

Modified: 01/15/2012

Time goes on

The WSJ plays a central role, as do other news and analysis sources, but today it hit the jackpot in terms of the interests of this, and a related, blog.

On 1/15/08, a main story covered the winners in the sub-prime event, confirming, in a sense, that these things are zero-sum despite the hype argued by some economists. We know about the losers who range from people who face, or have faced, losing their house to various financial institutions that bled heavily, including some smarty-pant hedge funds (more on this later).

Well, on the receiving end of some of those loses is another hedge firm with a different set of bets.

What is common is that the financial instruments involved are relatively new and seemingly entrenched now (Greenspan is consulting on these). Well, those higher-order thoughts involved are duly noted here, but, folks, believe it or not, we're talking hot air, for the most part (despite the fact that many live a fairly rich life while the multitudes suffer from want - age-old problem, in a sense).

In the pm, WSJ noted that there would be a 787 delay which will be published on 1/9/08. Well, there are connects between these two things that will be discussed here and as part of the expansion of truth engineering.

Yet, there is a supreme difference. Finance does not deal with reality to the same extent as does designing and building a plane. In the latter case, the thing can be put together and flown. But, one would hope that such a phase would take precedence over trying to get the means together to put the things out for use. There are several lessons here, perhaps, that we can look at.

In the former sense, there is a wide gap between reality and the workings. Okay, all these numbers flow through the computers and out to the tape (for the youngsters, that was first - all the titillating modern display are mainly extensions of the ticker). Supposedly, the overseeing agencies have put effort into making sure that what flows can be justified (audited), though I really wonder, as can they track 'short' actions that are purely virtual (no, and getting deeper will see that derivatives can hide a whole lot of nothing).

Yet, those numbers, in a sense, represent what is supposed to be a support for doing something real (say, provide food to eat, goods for use, etc.). Finance will always fail that test; hence it ought to be tied more closely to something real (if not gold, pick some arbitrary element).

Program management has some equivalent pitfalls, though the case is better due to the big test environment created by nature and our extensions. One of these is related to earned value which has to do with knowing where you are in the real world sense as you look at some map that is supposedly sufficient to provide guidance through the world (speaking here of the virtual overlay of any project - where at the other end is going to be a real entity).

Somehow, we've lost sight of some key issues. Well, thankfully, events bring about examples that can be used for study.

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).

09/09/2009 -- Alan's reign will be looked at, in time.

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

'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