|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
On the lasting importance of the SpaceX accomplishment.
On 2012-07-06, Jeff Findley wrote:
I run into people in management who make the mistake that knowledge somehow resides with the company. It doesn't. It's in the heads of the engineers. That too is a mistake. It's in both, especially when you're talking about the sort of highly coordinated methods, masses of documentation and controlled procedures required for the aerospace industry. Both are necessary. If company knowledge is lost, engineers will be able to recreate some of it, but much will be untested new invention. Likewise if engineers are lost, new engineers can be employed but they will never be exactly the same. Ever since the invention of writing (and to a lesser extent before), groups of people have jointly had more knowledge than the sum of the individuals. -- Tim |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
On the lasting importance of the SpaceX accomplishment.
In article , tim@little-
possums.net says... On 2012-07-06, Jeff Findley wrote: I run into people in management who make the mistake that knowledge somehow resides with the company. It doesn't. It's in the heads of the engineers. That too is a mistake. It's in both, especially when you're talking about the sort of highly coordinated methods, masses of documentation and controlled procedures required for the aerospace industry. While it is true that typical aerospace companies try to "document everything", often what is missed, despite the meticulous documentation is *why* certain decisions were made. The documentation you talk about is great for maintaining an existing system, but not so great for building a new system. Also, the very act of trying to "document everything" introduces quite a large amount of overhead on a project. This is one of the reasons a typical project managed by NASA, but built by contractors is so expensive. Not only is the amount of documentation required (by NASA) quite high, but the meetings to review that documentation, and justify all of the decisions made, is quite costly. Both are necessary. If company knowledge is lost, engineers will be able to recreate some of it, but much will be untested new invention. Likewise if engineers are lost, new engineers can be employed but they will never be exactly the same. Agreed. But again, for SpaceX, this wasn't all bad. They wanted to focus on low cost. Shedding the burden of existing (high cost) systems was a good thing. A case in point is rocket engines. They could have purchased "off the shelf" engines from one of the existing companies that produces them. But doing so would not have brought the cost of those engines down. That high engine cost would have been a detriment to their business model of providing low cost launches. Ever since the invention of writing (and to a lesser extent before), groups of people have jointly had more knowledge than the sum of the individuals. True, but I also have found, through my personal and professional experiences, that face to face communication is by far the best means of conveying information of the sort we're talking about. Communications by paper documents, telephone calls, emails, and even electronic documents can only go so far. Today's teleconferencing (along with tools like smart boards transferring the image of a PC desktop over the Internet) gets very close, but is still not as convenient as walking down the hall to someone's office. Don't get me wrong, documentation is important. But, once a company loses an employee, they've lost the means to directly communicate with him. Any knowledge that didn't get captured in the official company documentation is lost as well. Jeff -- " Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. " - tinker |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
On the lasting importance of the SpaceX accomplishment.
In sci.space.history Jeff Findley wrote:
True, but I also have found, through my personal and professional experiences, that face to face communication is by far the best means of conveying information of the sort we're talking about. Communications by paper documents, telephone calls, emails, and even electronic documents can only go so far. I will offer "EBWA" or Engineering By Wandering Around as the name for that rick jones -- The glass is neither half-empty nor half-full. The glass has a leak. The real question is "Can it be patched?" these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway... feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH... |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
On the lasting importance of the SpaceX accomplishment.
Tim Little wrote:
On 2012-07-06, Jeff Findley wrote: I run into people in management who make the mistake that knowledge somehow resides with the company. It doesn't. It's in the heads of the engineers. That too is a mistake. It's in both, especially when you're talking about the sort of highly coordinated methods, masses of documentation and controlled procedures required for the aerospace industry. It works for a lot of industries and professions, not just the aerospace industry, and without the mounds of paper typical of the aerospace industry. It remains to be seen however if SpaceX can make it work without said mounds. D. -- Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/ -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
On the lasting importance of the SpaceX accomplishment.
That too is a mistake. *It's in both, especially when you're talking about the sort of highly coordinated methods, masses of documentation and controlled procedures required for the aerospace industry. It works for a lot of industries and professions, not just the aerospace industry, and without the mounds of paper typical of the aerospace industry. *It remains to be seen however if SpaceX can make it work without said mounds. by now it should be clear to everyone that the old way, gets us no where in space. just look at the JWST in the beginning of space exploration things were much more like spaceX although there were some big failures there were also grand successes we as a nation can no longer afford the old way of doing things...... so its change or get out of the way........ the chinese can take over space, just like manufacturing |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
On the lasting importance of the SpaceX accomplishment.
On Jul 10, 6:43*am, bob haller wrote:
That too is a mistake. *It's in both, especially when you're talking about the sort of highly coordinated methods, masses of documentation and controlled procedures required for the aerospace industry. It works for a lot of industries and professions, not just the aerospace industry, and without the mounds of paper typical of the aerospace industry. *It remains to be seen however if SpaceX can make it work without said mounds. by now it should be clear to everyone that the old way, gets us no where in space. just look at the JWST The problem is not that the old way doesn't work, _per se_. It might not be the best way, but as Apollo demonstrated, it can work. The problem is a lack of will. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
On the lasting importance of the SpaceX accomplishment.
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
On the lasting importance of the SpaceX accomplishment. | Johnny1a | Policy | 37 | July 16th 12 04:12 PM |
On the lasting importance of the SpaceX accomplishment. | Nun Giver | Policy | 0 | July 7th 12 08:24 PM |