Through the years I've often participated on panels convened to study some particular problem, usually at the behest of the government. Typically, these concern some program, project, or issue that involves engineering and science, and one that is not seen to be doing as well as was desired or anticipated. The panel, composed of scientists and engineers, gets numerous briefings from people directly involved and from outside experts. Finally, a report is prepared with recommendations about how to fix the trouble.
In my own experience, these final reports almost always contain at least one of the following three recommendations:
1. Provide more money.
2. Put someone in charge.
3. Do some systems engineering.
Such reports are invariably received courteously by the panel's sponsors, but often with muted enthusiasm. I can see the wheels turning behind their eyes. "We knew this stuff," they are thinking. "You people are supposed to give us a technical solution, not tell us how to manage this. You're engineers, not management experts."
Each time I have the feeling that the study's sponsors believe or hope that there is some great new technology that will fix whatever the problem is, but that never seems to be the case. Almost always those involved with the problem are already perfectly aware of every applicable technology. Things run astray when their efforts are poorly coordinated, responsibility is diffuse, and management oversight and systems engineering or architecture at the top level are insufficient.
More at IEEE Spectrum
No comments:
Post a Comment