home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: sci.space
- Path: sparky!uunet!paladin.american.edu!gatech!emory!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
- From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
- Subject: Re: Overly "success" oriented program causes failure
- Message-ID: <1993Jan4.164516.10926@ke4zv.uucp>
- Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
- Organization: Destructive Testing Systems
- References: <19519.2b2f721a@levels.unisa.edu.au> <1992Dec28.163339.25647@ke4zv.uucp> <ewright.725659270@convex.convex.com>
- Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 16:45:16 GMT
- Lines: 58
-
- In article <ewright.725659270@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:
- >In <1992Dec28.163339.25647@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:
- >
- >Well, thank you, Gary.
- >
- >I asked you to name one example of a program run under your failure-
- >oriented management system ("Gosh, we know this isn't going to work,
- >but if we keep the program running long enough, we've got lifetime job
- >security, so don't try too hard, boys") that was a success.
-
- Since *your* failure oriented system is totally your own strawman invention
- out of whole cloth, I won't bother to address it further.
-
- >Instead, you gave one example of a success-oriented program that
- >failed.
- >
- >I guess by evading my question, you answered it. ;-)
-
- I gave an example of a "success" oriented program that went sour
- for the typical reason. If you want a megaprogram that came in on
- schedule and on budget despite thousands of engineering change
- orders during development, I'll point you to GM's Saturn line
- of automobiles. A less grandiose development program would be
- the automated shirtmaking machine project of one of my companies,
- Southern Microsystems. It came in on time and on budget desipite
- having to change the cutterhead from laser to hydro, change the
- shade marking sensors three times, change the feeder belt from
- mesh to resin, the folder from stainless to teflon coated cast
- aluminum, and rewriting the control software for the Singer
- heads. That's because the most likely developmental bottlenecks
- were identified in the planning process and allowance made in
- the Pert charts for alternative workaround development time and
- money. It actually came in three weeks ahead of schedule and
- nearly $3,000 under budget. That's pretty good for a $170,000
- 6 month project. The several hundred machines working today on
- shop floors have easily made this a highly profitable product
- *because* we didn't *assume* our intitial design would work
- and made allowances in the program for alternatives, some, like
- the cutterhead change, quite radical.
-
- It's not "success" orientation versus "failure" orientation,
- it's unrealistic rose tinted glasses expectations against sound
- management practices. Sometimes the wild hare flyers pay off, but
- 9 times out of 10 it's the plodding conservative engineer that
- wins the race on time and on budget. Unless a program has deep
- pockets behind it, and an endlessly patient customer, fast track
- "success" oriented programs *are* the ones that are truly "failure"
- oriented since they have less than a 10% chance of delivering the
- product on spec, on time, and on budget. Often they never deliver a
- product at all, or so late to market, so over budget, and so under
- spec that it won't sell.
-
- Gary
- --
- Gary Coffman KE4ZV | You make it, | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
- Destructive Testing Systems | we break it. | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
- 534 Shannon Way | Guaranteed! | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary
- Lawrenceville, GA 30244 | | emory!ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu
-