From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Overly "success" oriented program causes failure
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Destructive Testing Systems
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 16:45:16 GMT

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
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary