What topics for this blog?

While reviewing the stats that are provided by blogger, it was interesting to see which posts have had the most readership (see below) since the inception (not! see Remarks 04/28/2011). The two most-read posts dealt with a 787 issue and were written two years ago. The third most-read post was written about 3 1/2 years ago about the same subject.

As an aside, the first two are also the 'most-read' for the past month. So, the topic remains timely. That program is only one of several from which we can extract lessons to be learned. Of course, that oops abound is just a fact of human life. What we hope is that we get better in preventing oops that are not necessary, perhaps minimize the effect of those which cannot be entirely removed (such as the recent storm which went across the entire USA, leaving some unprepared though there were many warnings), and so forth.

The below list can be extended, but let's take the top six, for now. The date of the post and percent of total reads (aside: the counter was activated a little over a year ago) are included.

• Wing and body - (July 1, 2009 - 7.3% --- 29.6%) -- any multi-disciplinary effort has to bridge ontological, communication, and other gaps. Our hope that the computational, and its mathematical basis, paradigm will do so is a panacea. Except for this, there is a general dumbing down that results from the spirit squish (see first bullet) related to projections (we'll go into this further); the corresponding lifts cannot but trample further.
• Confoundness (Poll 7) - (July 14, 2009 - 4.1% --- 16.2%) -- Despite efforts at solving non-linear systems (link here) appearing to be magic, things are solved with linear approximates (hear this, folks). It's a type of dumbing down (yes, guys). And, we never 'simultaneously' anything, even with parallelism. That continues to be a pipe dream. Now, quantum computing might add an interesting wrinkle, or two, if we can handle entanglement. Yes, the program seems to have tried to disentangle by outhousing. Did it work? Perhaps, the students of industry will be thankful for this chance to observe the effects of relaxing along almost all directions of decision. For one thing, there seems to be an upper bound (though, not by necessity -- as the company's engineers, and knowledge workers, seem to have pulled this thing out of its perilous state).
• Cramming for the exam - (Sept 13, 2007 - 3.4% --- 11.2%) -- There was an article (find this) about the first two years of college being wasted, on partying and such. Too, people learn from examples and tests for which there is an answer. Underdetermination is solely underappreciated; has always been, it seems. Hubris breeds its own set of oops.
• Truth, fiction and finance - (Oct 21, 2008 - 2.6% --- 10.2%) -- Ah, is it any better now? Have you seen anyone's knuckles rapped by the ruler-holding nun?
• Here we go again - (June 24, 2009 - 2.0% --- 9.0%) -- Those bullets hold up. Perhaps, there'll be an attempt at focusing on each of those and at extending the scope beyond the theme of that post.
• Facebook, as metaphor - (Sept 22, 2010 - 1.6% --- 5.3%) -- computational ubiquity, and inter-connectedness, are going to be a given in the future. However, how will this play out, who will exploit whom, how will things work? Many questions abound. No doubt, there'll be oodles of oops (it might be fun to collect some of these that we have seen so far -- such as supplier driven changes (see below)). The blogger has been involved with computational mathematics for decades, saw intimations of some of these modern sights along the way, appreciates the progress (who of the younger set could claim that?), bewails some of the emergent idiocy (goes along with the oops, I guess), and so forth. Hence, expect a continuation of this theme.

Here are some facts related to the blog: the first post was Aug 31, 2007; as of this post, there have been 197 posts; the most posts were done in 2008; the most posts per month was October 2008; financial oops outweigh those of engineering, by far and for many reasons.

---

What does the use of 'supplier driven' mean? Perhaps, the 'better mouse trap' motivation is a key one in which innovators present the results of their efforts. Some of these will become fads and attract a lot of attention. At the same time, some of the lucky will become enormously rich.

Those things that don't become fads may have several reasons for not being such, like being ahead of their time, too difficult, and more. In any case, the total of the inventions might allow some means for determining what will last, as in having an intrinsic value. How often do things of 'intrinsic value' ever map to fads? Sometimes the answer to that is frightful.

Is there a reasonable way to try to direct toward a better future? That is another question. A view of technically minded (meaning, those who can - not necessarily only the younger set has this attribute, by the way -- not exclaiming too much that notion, either) pokes fun at the manager types (those who cannot do, except through the efforts of others -- sheesh, you supposed best-and-brightest, we ought not be expected to royal pabody osculate, okay?) say: I don't know what I want until I see it. The usual smart-arsed reaction is to bring a rock.

There is something to the fact that we don't know, until something is tried (to wit, the cramming the exam bullet above). Oh, I know, engineering's prowess with the computational might show otherwise. Well, no, it does not - quasi-empirical claim.

Progress has been attained on the backs of many and at the ultimate peril of a not-small number. That is, oops are one way to learn. An adage suggests that we ought to learn from what oops others face. But, how many bodies and how much time do we have? Ah, yes, managers, out-housing seems to extend any limits there to something uncountable, does it not?

Well, 'nuf for now, expect several posts dealing with these notions.

Remarks:

04/28/2011 -- There is an overall count for all reads that goes back to inception. However, for individual posts, the 'all time' count is for the past year. Percentage numbers for the most-read posts updated with the new basis, e.g. Wing and body went from 7.3% to 29.6%.

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). While we're at it, we ought to look at Canadian banks, again.

Modified: 08/24/2011

Here we go again, II

So, now we're hearing some tales, out of school, by Jon at flightblogger. Out of school? Yes, he is quoting anonymous sources at Boeing. Those who know that they ought not talk, yet do. Not real whistle blowers, as that would require them to come out into the light.

Well, before continuing here, the content of Here we go again still apply. What is necessary is an update. That will take some time, but we can look at a couple of issues, for now.

Firstly, from the beginning, I wondered about the leaks (the recent clamor in relation to WikiLeaks is very much apropos to the discussion) that Jon used. Were they ringers? How did he get such good pictures that would obviously belong to Boeing smuggled out? So many questions relate to that theme.

Along the same vein, there is the whole issue of how a company can manipulate information in order to influence investors. Of course, the legal positions on the subject continue to flux, yet that we're dealing with a near-zero game (which could be seen as patently illegal in other contexts) seems to never take any appreciable awareness in our collective minds. Many comments to Jon's blog posts have wondered about this.

Secondly, a grand and world-wide system is hugely appealing. But, it is so for different reasons for different folks. We can enumerate but will defer that to a later date. Let's look at three of those folks, for now. 1) We have the engineers and others who can do. Yes, the WWW (thanks to DOD for letting this little genie out of the bottle - I'm still amazed that we let loose that US taxpayer funded technology for the idiots to exploit) portends a whole lot of things that even scifi hasn't fully described. However, the old issue of map-territory (plus, being seduced by the allure of the abstract; the so intriguing notions related to computational ubiquity (to the limit of the universal computing device - why else the wizardry related to mathematics?); and a whole lot more). More power (pun, for the IEEE folks) to these pioneers, from whom has arisen all the marvels around us.

2) We have poor people who would like to better their situation. Unfortunately, for more than is necessary, many get trapped into unconscionable exploitation by the next group. Imagine: being tied into something so atrociously bad that is related to Apple (sheesh, Steve) and its new products, that one kills oneself (the solution was to wire, and make inaccessible, the jump points?). We'll be going into discussing the people, and not from a classist view either, at large.

3) Now, for the real as***es of the world. Yes, the best and brightest. Now, these types (can't live without them) are in 787 program, to boot; we'll not name names. They want to out-house (no apologies needed for the use) in order to exploit group number 2 while putting it to group number 1 who have been a pain in their rears. Yes. Just look at Wichita. Harry (yes, guy, I have your number) wanted it gone since the workers dared to boo him at a meeting where he and lil Jefe offered pop (as in soda - oh yes, it was iced) and the opportunity for them to tell the workers why they didn't need the union. This is another story to tell. Basically, when the opportunity arose, black-booted thuggery was let loose for several months that terrorized a whole bunch of workers. One has to wonder what would be the state of the program if Wichita was till within the folds of the company.

But, that's minor. Who the heck cares about a little city in the middle of the US? What is more of a concern is that there were many good talkers, using all sorts of lures, who pulled sane people into an untenable position that was more risky than not. But, hey, did we not just see the financial folks do the same thing? Despite recent mania (read Dow, et al -- on the backs of the savers, thanks Ben, big guy), there is more hurt than not (big bonuses for the fat cats does not cover up the crap).

What went wrong here? The plane did fly and for a long while. Now, ought there have been those pre-production crafts sitting there as if wishes were reality? Would one not think that the better method may have been to test the thing first and then work production? Cart before horse?

---

So much to look at. We'll continue to plod along. But, the basics need some attention: how do we know?, who the h*l tells the truth? (see Remarks, 'truth wears off' indeed), why CEOs? (as in, my ancestors did not come here, away from those arses, for me to have to continue the kissing mode), and much more.

Remarks:

07/15/2013 -- A fire late last week bring an opportunity to see what goes into determining whether to do composite repair or to undergo a section replacement.

03/11/2011 -- Wired asks, ought we care? About I-Phone suicides

.01/01/2011 -- This theme? We're done. Engineering is a shining example of human effort. Finance? Ah, cannot be said by a civilized tongue!

Modified: 07/15/2013

Trusted employees

Yes, business can do essentially stupid things very well. They can completely mishandle their workers, in many cases, and then wonder why things may not work as they should. We don't have to point to any company in particular, but those who look to get their knowledge off the shelf or to out-house expertise deserve what they get.

Now, again, no one company or party needs to take exception to this message here, but the stupidity will continue until a few lessons are learned. One of these lessons is a central theme here in these blogs.

That is, the thing called earned value which is 1/2 of a pair.

Believe it or not, those two in the pair of fair, and earned, value relate.

Now consider, earned value is supposed to let you know about progress in a correct and meaningful manner. We have all seen what happens when the disciplines involved let us down (thanks a lot, risk handlers and applied mathematicians).

Another one is control engineering, let's use it as a metaphor for discussing this thing and its issues.

First, let's look ahead and point to an important factor necessary for solution to the problems: the autodidact.

In any company, there are those who get things done even when they are mistreated or unrecognized. Well, local management can do a good job of keeping these people happy; it's those in the ivory towers, and personal jets, who have an entirely erroneous grasp of the situation.

Also, those who know this theme will appreciate this post; unfortunately, those without a clue are so dense as to not understand. Yes, some of the dense are superstar CEOs and what have you. Others seem to just tag along in order to get their names in the paper.

This blog, and its kin, on the other hand, want to address issues of substance, hopefully to help us determine workable solutions.

A recent edition of the IEEE Control Systems Society's periodical had a little quote that applies here: the level of accuracy that can consistently be achieved with any estimation strategy depends on the sensor configuration.

Now, granted that the framework in the paper was controlling an autonomous vehicle using model, and sensor, information plus the appropriate processing. Yet, it seems that this type of control is a paragon for any wide-spread process that is computationally framed and supported. The important thing here is what 'sensor' might mean in this example.

Well, the most important connotation would be the human who is integral to keeping the database updated by evaluating progress using hard-won expertise. And, that, Mr and Ms heads of companies, is not ever going to be off-the-shelf or out-housed. Some of the facility might be offloaded to the subcontractor, as Lean has shown. Yet, a very important part cannot be.

Ah, can this be done? Yes, we will have to adequately handle what are people matters. Who said that is would be easy?

Remarks:

10/19/2009 -- Gray areas are where your people make the difference, bosses. You break the hearts of your best assets and wonder why things don't work.

10/16/2009 -- 201K <-- 401K --> 25601K, this denotes the current financial gaming.

10/15/2009 -- We've just touched the surface here, folks. Of course, we need educated, and certified, folks. Medicine can not work without it. But, does your Dr run your life? The analog here is the company that outhouses and then wants to just sit back and let things happen while rolling in the glory and the dough. So, you know, things happen (or don't), and you get big delays, shoddy products, and the like. Another permutation here is the goal to use just general engineers, which is really trying to identify autodidactic traits. Looking for an electrical guy to act as a mechanical guy would take some additional learning on his part. But, the approach is not just about those with the talent sufficient to cover many fields; rather, it is the expectation that some mathematical, and computational, frameworks can succumb knowledge requirements sufficiently to then remove those viewpoints related to specifics of disciplines. Only a manager could think that, would be one response. We'll continue with the theme.

Modified: 10/19/2009

Outhouse'd

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Remarks:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Modified: 05/30/2013

Thanksgiving, again

It's been a year since the financial view was added to that of program management. But, oops abound everywhere, including medicine. It's how we expect oops and then handle them, when they arise, that is important.

For the financial part, things just fell apart this year, though it was predictable. So many things have gone wrong, what with fairy dusting, happy talking, quirky quants, and more. We saw that financial engineering is so in name only.

But, too, the real engineers have had their problems, probably mostly attributable more to management idiocy than to any engineering downside. But, one wonders if the Systems Engineers may not have had a comeuppance that has been overdue. We have to ask what outsourcing lessons are going to be learned.

Now, there are commonalities, between the above finance and engineering views, that go beyond the use of mathematics and computing. What in finance is fiduciary duty is a little more complicated for an airplane program. That is, is rushing the job analogous to putting money in one's pocket? The programs needs to remember that a plane has to fly, do so well, keep people safe, work within cost, make money, and a number of other things.

The medical oops can be instructive, as in many cases protocol can outweigh data, yet there are issues of cost and quasi-empiricism that need to be considered. So, using examples from the medical disciplines can help in discussing finance and engineering.

Remarks:

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

03/25/2009 -- Rhetoric can be fun, but we have to get into these issues with depth and technicalities.

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

2/12/2008 -- 787 delays continue.

12/01/2008 -- We need to learn what we might be taught about money by Islamic Finance.

Modified: 05/18/2009

Outsourcing as a panacea

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

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

Remarks:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Modified: 09/04/2009

Leveraging and more

Yes, as we did with fiction and finance, we can also look at the oops related to leveraging. At one time, leveraging was consider not smart. Think of it, would you offer a large loan without any collateral (that you could verify in value) for some hair-brained scheme (how do you know how to evaluate the scheme? well, this is where skeptical thinking and experience come in).

So, in trying to catch up with the madness (having left school 30+ years ago and frankly not paying attention to the activities of idiots with money), reading like mad, watching results being analyzed (usually, the analysis was trifling and without substance), and considering how all this madness got started (related to age old issue, I know), on several occasions it was necessary to look at what it means to pile up debt.

As an aside, in Wichita, Hawker Beechcraft is loaded with debt from their split from Raytheon. The step of going IPO in order to spread the hurt, in little pieces, to others has not happened, yet. That whole game needs to be looked at, too. Hawker has a maintenance cost of 0.2B yearly; that must smart. No amount of belt-tightening or smart maneuvers can retire that level of debt. No, it requires the facilities of a market (who would want to buy?).

Leverage and truth -- March 25 . Looked at the underlying theoretics, which are usually fairly dismal in economics (the name fits perfectly). Ah, reinsurance is mentioned. Yes, didn't everyone think that risk was spread ad infinitum (Berkeley would love it!). And, then we have AIG, do we not?

Leverage and truth II -- March 31. Ah yes, the market dogma. It is touted by those whose pockets get lined immensely. Then, we have those who argue not zero-sum (hah!). What we'll have to do here is show that the best that we can do is near zero-sum.

Leverage and truth III -- May 19. Even by this time, I wasn't ready to accept all the idiotic changes to lessons from the 30s. We need to somehow make it clear that the CitiBank guy was wrong (Weill - well, he has his money) - Marx actually has a better take. Oh well.

Leveraging and oops -- May 19. So, we know that the financial community went out on the limb with leveraging. Do we not know that outsourcing (of certain varieties) is a type of leveraging? One problem with the engineering outsource is that of keeping it real (oops of this nature were coincidental to the start of this blog) and avoiding happy thinking. (Note 11/01/2008 - Well, now, Boeing is claiming insights about the possible banes of outsourcing.)

To the hilt -- August 19. Yes, like any addiction, the thing of going out on a limb grabs and does not allow one to let go. Evidently, to look at how smart people start to look like idiots. Of course, we really need to look at some physical binding (not gabbing) for money, that is other than a precious metal.

The idea here is to not just gab (that is the current basis) but to get technical and specific. After all, engineering computing handles similar issues, including the need to resolve several types of issues related to modeling, verification, and validation.

Oh, yes, the economy seems to be run like a real-time game. How do we get some notion of rigor applied? Well, it's not by chasing money.

Remarks:

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

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

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

03/17/2011 -- Politicos might actually be compounding the issues.

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

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

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

Modified: 05/30/2012

A new type of colonialism

Yes. Guess what it is? Globalization. Yes, it's to do in the doers, allow speculators to reign.

There have been many tos and fros throughout history and even before. Many of these involved nations, where the most recent was the treading upon souls that accompanied Europe's (and the US's) conquests, which were economically motivated.

Who is the new colonizer? Well, business with its global model. That we'll be going into. Modern business seems to think that it has labor colonized.

Busyness is noted for marching after the buck. That manifests itself with the few at the top accumulating hordes of money (say, like the guy who took $161M from his position atop a company that tanked).

Many like to argue that we're not dealing with zero-sum issues. Yes we are, folks. Call it, near-zero if you must. Any who gets big pockets takes it from other pockets.

So, not only do we have the new colonizer, there is little to motivate efforts at a common basis. What basis? Well, for the USers, that which is pointed out in the Declaration of Independence. Supposedly, the Constitution of the US guarantees some type of pursuit of well-being.

Notice, that well-being is not pocket lining of exorbitant proportions. No, there has to be better ways. One of these would be to constrain the situations (via a type of sandbox) where some play with the assets of the many ultimately leading to perditious states (pity the hapless).

Such as we are in now.

Remarks:

05/01/2012 -- Need to bring this up to date. For now, some pointers: Steve, Rank and file, Errors of Capitalism, ...

12/08/2009 -- Consider Paul and current CEOs.

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

09/12/2009 -- Sandbox was used without definition. Let's discuss that concept.

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

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.

Modified: 05/01/2012

Fraud power I

Fraud power? Yes!!! This, from a former SEC head; he's looking at derivatives and other modern instruments and shaking his head, as has 7'oops7er. We'll go more into all this through time while we look at finance and products.

Let's pause and look at some coming titles:

• - Fraud power - ah, we can look at how finance, as says Minsky, always goes astray. We can start from the problems with the gab standard and work our way up to those who have pilfered more than their share. Rhetoric and market would be synonymous, except it does always come down to money (the taxpayers as contributors). Ah, but as engineers know, you cannot fool mother nature.
• - Captains of industry - yes, we could split all captains into types: military, political, industry, medical, charity, ..., church, ... Well, of late, some politicians (who may have been business leads) have argued that 'captains of industry' (the CEO as the new king) are who ought to run the country. What? They have no morals in their equation; at least, the political realm is not moral-less yet. Industry hasn't even solved its ethical problems yet. Things like the current strike can be tied (even if some think these are loose ties) to ethics. We'll get to that later. Military leads, at least, have some national ethics, as would the political leads. That some church leaders lead lives of material sickness (as in over indulgence in abundance) is not the norm.
• - Globalization - huh? Does not everyone know that being differentiated is one attribute of the mature? Thanks to Jung's fine analysis. So, what's this about dropping national borders in the interest of lining pockets? The 'pure' theory of international trade is just that (intellectual flimflam).
• - Best and brightest - oh yes, if you guys who want to exercise your 'fraud power' would put your mind on a better problem, perhaps the world would improve. Say, how about studying why each generation seems to bring forward more 'fraudulent' methods (enabled by the progress of technology)?
• - Silly games - some of the current problem can be traced to mortgage issues; yet, that is only part of the story. As, the whole notion of 'intrinsic' value has been pushed into the mud of the 'fraudulent' muck. We have, and will continue to, address that.
• - New model - when you look at the disparity between the views of management (who, you know, are divinely ordained) and labor (mere commodities, slavishly utilized and then trashed), you wonder what we might have learned by this 21st century. Well, Boeing has experimented with new ways, namely the technical fellowship, that can help bridge the gap. Where are they and their insights? Oh, buried under management's cloak?

Well, the work load is set; hopefully, time will allow fruition (no, not a slam against that fine plane that will one day fly).

Remarks:

01/15/2012 -- Changed the title. See updated post.

03/22/2011 -- It's spring, and the garble uses gambling metaphors.

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

08/24/2009 -- Last year, Ben blinked and panicked. He frantically pulled out all stops as if with no thought for tomorrow. Now, he has no use for 'mea culpa' big daddy that he is. Ben, start to unwind now.

07/31/2009 -- Let's see, 5,000 got over $1M for services rendered. Well, that's probably a sign of being a best-and-brightest, at least to certain eyes; it's called rolling-in-the-dough.

Now, this can be used to illustrate how the game it to fill the pockets of a small set to an exorbitant amount. Does the game need to be that way? Hell no. We'll look at that some more.

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

12/13/2008 -- Well, another fraud type is the real ponzi. Who would have thought? What other shoes?

12/02/2008 -- The main topics include financial engineering, globalization as colonialism, panaceas such as outsourcing, and much more.

Modified: 01/15/2012

One year later

7oops7 isn't quite a year old as the first post was almost September of 2007. The precipitating event is one year. As mentioned earlier, the interests are varied, including truth (as in lack of hubris, for one), engineering, finance, and many others.

On the engineering side, we get this from flightblogger, a Happy Birthday.

Now might be a time to review the past year in terms of releases, forums, and all the discussion. Of course, such analysis will take some time.

The anchor point would be the Release one year ago which talked about rolling out (ostensibly to fly) in seven weeks. Then, one can delta forward and backward from that point and look at who knew what or how (too, who is a cheerleader versus an analyst) there was so much confusion (Some seeds, posted 08/31/07; these have not been looked at since November of 2007 but expect an update).

On the finance side, the intent is still to explain that 'gaming' does not sustain an economy and that any scheme that indentures (as in debt to the fat cats) the populace to the nth generation as we see now is not sustainable.

Earlier, Minsky's ideas were used. Also, tie ins between engineering and finance were mentioned, even to the extent of comparing outsourcing to leveraging. We'll get into that more.

Too, we'll need to look at personal finance which lessons apply as well to smaller business, and perhaps broader.

If we look at E_S_T_A_T_E like this brief overview, we can go a long way toward a better framework. We will look more closely at: Earning, Saving, Tithing, Alms giving, Tax paying, Enjoying the fruits.

One might even say, in that order, as we are allowed to do in the USA. That second activity (Saving) is antithetical to what some have seen as a necessary part of the modern economy. "Alms giving" covers a lot of bases including the current encouragements to volunteer. The final action does not imply in any way that debt is required (beyond some reasonable amount - hey, mortgages were real nice before the madness of the past 10 years) nor does it make judgments about extents of spending, such as McMansions, et al, which will be as much controlled by wisdom (which is a growing set - even with the propensity toward greed) as by resources.

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.

Modified: 04/07/2012

Leveraging and oops

Earlier posts here and on another blog (TE's look at Truth, fiction and finance) suggested that gaming was the basis for a lot of modern finance as people tried to line their pockets, for whatever reason.

This theme will continue along with reviewing all the ways that oops can arise. The Calculated Risk blog provided an overview of leveraging (and tranching - can this be other than sleight-of-hand movement of monies to the bigger pockets, or how do we get something from nothing?) in the context of the recent sub-prime problem. Essentially, leveraging will accentuate movement on either side; if it's positive, then the Streeters (and their others) enjoy big bonuses and maintain their growing distance on the wealth disparity line; if it's negative, then the small guys (usually) lose more relatively than do the bigger pockets.

Except that all this gaming has been the result of Fed foolishness. What happened to the lessons from the 'big crash' with regard to leveraging? So, we have our work cut out for us in regard to the financial shenanigans and related.

On another note, this week Boeing is hosting the world's eyes (both traditional and new, meaning bloggers, of course) in an update of the Dreamliner status. That, no doubt, will spawn off more need to talk about insights, issues, and, especially, the imaginative.

In reference to the Dreamliner program, outsourcing is a type of leverage, especially if expertise is assumed. In terms of that particular program, there were several aspects that will be of continued interest as things unfold, if only for lessons learned.

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).

03/17/2011 -- Politicos might actually be compounding the issues.

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

11/01/2008 -- Recently, Boeing announced having obtained insights from analyzing problems with outsourcing. Well, the company has been a success from applying its lessons learned over a number of decades. Here's one for it to consider: Wichita would have been a marvelous grounding asset - in terms of well-founded knowledge about the 787 status, plus more. Oh, of course, letting it go helped line oodles of pockets which would have not have happened if it had been retained within Boeing.

10/26/2008 -- Leveraging is a fairy dust operation, or as Marx would say, fictitious capital creation is the game. We ought to be looking at what has gone wrong, in more ways than being looked at Paulson, Bernanke, and crew.

Modified: 08/01/2013

From small beginnings

An earlier post suggested that Minsky's model might help motivate some discussion related to 'oops, loops, and oops. The WSJ couched the discussion in terms of lies told by economists. We could probably talk about untruths (not to imply lies, rather those things that are meant to overcome uncertainty and are bolstered by optimism) told by suppliers.

But, let's use a couple of economic notions from Minsky and see if there might be a program / project parallel.

For one, in terms of borrowers and a cycle, he described three levels. These are the hedge borrowers (where something of value might be thought of as collateral - existing as a real thing at the moment), speculative borrowers (where leverage starts to raise its head), and Ponzi borrowers (yes, this concept can be applied to the multi-layering found in an extreme outsourcing arrangement).

The movement through these types (and, there are probably many more levels that one could differentiate) goes from the more real to the abstract (I'm being nice here and pointing more to ignorant manipulations rather than explicit malfeasance).

That one needs to hedge has become clear, and this can make financial sense. Can one 'hedge' in engineering? That is a question we must ask and discuss. Some related issues are earned-value analysis, clarity, and the like.

Well, one could definitely talk about 'speculative' use (and, perhaps, even 'ponzi') in terms of some analytics and their assumptions. The main question is how to guard against this; good people, in short.

Now, in terms, of a product, testing is a key convergent phenomenon that has to have higher priority than we saw in one instance.

Too, Minsky talked about some other attributes associated with a cycle, using displacement, boom, euphoria, profit taking, and panic, from early on to late. Without going into detail, it's not hard to map this same type of thing with projects. What denotes more about 'panic' than sending oodles of people out to a project? The mythical man-month applies to more than software.

Well, control is an operative word as a means to dampen instability. And, the old watchwords come to play, such as measurement, vigilance, and, I might add, attitudes that are anti-hubris.

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).

12/17/2008 -- We'll use made-off in lieu of ponzi, henceforth.

Modified: 08/01/2013

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

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

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