Victims of Our Own Success?
Jun. 24th, 2006 11:08 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
stickmakerThere have always been people who equate "difficult" with "impossible." I've never understood why anyone would do this, any more that I've ever been able to understand any form of absolutism. Because in the real world absolutes are so rare as to be notable.
Lately, I've noticed an associated phenomenon, often exhibited by the same sort of people mentioned in the first sentence. People who think that if something doesn't work first try it's a failure. Whether they have any knowledge in the field or not, if it isn't perfect, right out of the box - or metaphorical starting gate - they say "scrap it!"
Actually, I can trace some examples of this back to McNamara's Whiz Kids of the Sixties (and I'm sure it goes back further) but even they knew better than to reject something after one bad test. Though they did often assume that something should work perfectly after far less development and field testing than it actually received. (Remember the early M-16?)
While much can be done well with computer simulations, much can't. Anyone who thinks computers can accurately model everything in our complex existence has never worked with computer modeling. (I have.) Tests and development are still necessary, and probably always will be. (Some recent aircraft, such as the 777, have been touted as going straight from the CAD/CAE/CAM to the factory. They didn't. You better believe that assumptions were tested, even if only by different computer simulations. One reason so little testing and development work were needed for the 777 is that so many actual, physical tests have been run that we already have real-world data to support the simulations.)
Modern technology is remarkably reliable. For those of you driving cars less than twenty years old, how long has it been since you had a breakdown on the road? Or needed major repairs? Or even had a blowout? (I'm old enough to remember when carrying a repair kit - *not* an emergency repair kit, because breakdowns were common enough as to not normally be considered an emergency, just a normal if unpleasant event - in your car wasn't paranoia, but a necessity.)
The problem with this is that most people accept "now" as "always." They never consider the chance of failure in their own lives or work, much less the lives or work of others. Besides leading to a rejection of research and development projects which actually need development and maybe even field testing, this leads to failure causing far more problems than it should, because there's no backup plans in place. So important work is opposed because it's hard (which is equated with "impossible") and the failures which do occur are worse than they should be.
Lately, I've noticed an associated phenomenon, often exhibited by the same sort of people mentioned in the first sentence. People who think that if something doesn't work first try it's a failure. Whether they have any knowledge in the field or not, if it isn't perfect, right out of the box - or metaphorical starting gate - they say "scrap it!"
Actually, I can trace some examples of this back to McNamara's Whiz Kids of the Sixties (and I'm sure it goes back further) but even they knew better than to reject something after one bad test. Though they did often assume that something should work perfectly after far less development and field testing than it actually received. (Remember the early M-16?)
While much can be done well with computer simulations, much can't. Anyone who thinks computers can accurately model everything in our complex existence has never worked with computer modeling. (I have.) Tests and development are still necessary, and probably always will be. (Some recent aircraft, such as the 777, have been touted as going straight from the CAD/CAE/CAM to the factory. They didn't. You better believe that assumptions were tested, even if only by different computer simulations. One reason so little testing and development work were needed for the 777 is that so many actual, physical tests have been run that we already have real-world data to support the simulations.)
Modern technology is remarkably reliable. For those of you driving cars less than twenty years old, how long has it been since you had a breakdown on the road? Or needed major repairs? Or even had a blowout? (I'm old enough to remember when carrying a repair kit - *not* an emergency repair kit, because breakdowns were common enough as to not normally be considered an emergency, just a normal if unpleasant event - in your car wasn't paranoia, but a necessity.)
The problem with this is that most people accept "now" as "always." They never consider the chance of failure in their own lives or work, much less the lives or work of others. Besides leading to a rejection of research and development projects which actually need development and maybe even field testing, this leads to failure causing far more problems than it should, because there's no backup plans in place. So important work is opposed because it's hard (which is equated with "impossible") and the failures which do occur are worse than they should be.
