snipped-for-privacy@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:
>
> Stop
>
> Think
>
>
>
>
>
>
No stopping until I die. And certainly not first. Yet you lay it out as if to be a chronological step process. So...
There are more than two, but a few are...
Observe Learn Observe Think Create Observe Proof Give to the world
Wasn't there something called the KISS Rule? Keep It Simple Stupid.
also consider the cyclical nature of EE work, a la Shewart cycle (plan, do, act, adjust,...Go To 1) or, as done on s.e.d., 'lather' 'rinse' 'repeat'... cheers, rich s.
Presumably that was done at the start of a project, but it is often done wrong. Especially when designing a new standard product. So an occasional stop/think break could change the project direction.
Group-think and management discourage such re-assessments.
I've often seen clients say they want X developed to solve their problem Y.
After talking to them it becomes apparent that Y is merely a symptom of the underlying problem and that X isn't the best way of solving their underlying problem. In bad cases, X won't even solve the underlying problem.
The clients you don't want are those are wedded to X for reasons that they can't adequately explain.
I didn't realise it had been coded in those terms.
I first discovered it was a problem in ~1982, and had no doubt that my discovery wasn't original. It is just The Way People Are.
The x y problem is usually found in xx people.
Reassessments might be as hard (or harder) if there is just one person involved. The optimal number of people for one project is probably greater than one. (not to say some geek working alone in their basement can't get a lot done.)
George H.
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required