Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [agile-usability] Real data

Expand Messages
  • Dave Rooney
    Glen, In Lovell s case, survival depended on success and it was reactive. I also remember that Capt. Haines & crew managed to get their crippled United Flight
    Message 1 of 218 , Feb 1, 2010

      In Lovell's case, survival depended on success and it was reactive. I
      also remember that Capt. Haines & crew managed to get their crippled
      United Flight 232 DC-10 on the ground and saved many lived (including
      their own) in the process. Several very experienced United captains
      attempted to do the same in the simulator, and not a single one pulled
      it off. You could say that the simulator wasn't "the real thing", but I
      suspect that since they didn't have "their asses on the line", there
      wasn't the same motivation to succeed.

      This discussion also reminds me of the first F-22 deployment to Kadena,
      Japan. The navigation, communications and fuel systems software failed
      on all of the fighters when they crossed the International Date Line,
      turning them into very fast & expensive J-3 Cubs. IIRC, a software
      patch was received within a couple of days which to me indicates the
      problem was relatively easy to fix. If so, it should also have been
      easy to test in the first place. If Lockheed-Martin is CMM L5, how in
      the hell did such a simple thing get overlooked?

      That's not to say that the same issue wouldn't have occurred if they
      were doing every single XP practice in existence, but rather that even
      the most rigourous, "failure is not an option" environments can still
      screw up. The real question is how LM dealt with the problem afterwards
      - was root cause analysis performed on the software, the process and the


      Dave Rooney
      Agile Coach and Co-founder, Westboro Systems
      "Maximizing the value of your IT investments!"
      E-mail: dave.rooney@...
      Twitter: daverooneyca

      On 01/02/2010 10:08 AM, Glen B. Alleman wrote:
      > Michael,
      > Correct, it's the title of a book. But having sat in front of Krantz and
      > Lovell they have now incorporated the myth into the "story." Lovell's quote
      > is "success was our only option."
      > Glen
      >> -----Original Message-----
      >> From: agile-usability@yahoogroups.com [mailto:agile-
      >> usability@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Michael James
      >> Sent: Sunday, January 31, 2010 11:45 PM
      >> To: agile-usability@yahoogroups.com
      >> Subject: Re: [agile-usability] Real data
      >> On 01/30/2010 09:13 AM, Glen B. Alleman wrote:
      >>> As Gene Krantz is fond on repeating "failure is not an option."
      >> Interesting bit of trivia -- Krantz didn't actually say that
      >> originally. He used it as a book title after the line became
      >> associated with him in popular culture. I wouldn't have mentioned it
      >> if the subject line weren't "Real data."
      >> --mj
    • George Dinwiddie
      Hi, Jon, ... I ve never found creating software to be a one and only time no matter how small the program. There s a lot of similarity between writing one
      Message 218 of 218 , Feb 12, 2010
        Hi, Jon,

        Jon Kern wrote:
        > ok, maybe it is silly to debate the term...
        > George it's a free country, use method anytime you please :-)
        > I personally will only use "method" when I want to describe some way
        > that I achieve something over and over. Often in an abstract sense,
        > often in a step-wise way. Often because the "something" is a desirous
        > end goal, and one that I (or someone else) wants more than one time.
        > I would not describe the /ad hoc/ "how" of the one and only time I will
        > ever do something as a "method" if it is not.

        I've never found creating software to be a "one and only time" no matter
        how small the program. There's a lot of similarity between writing one
        line of code and writing the next.

        And I've observed, that people generally continue to do something
        somewhat in the fashion they've done it before. Thoughtful people will
        consider the result their achieving, and modify their actions to try to
        improve some aspect.

        I've never seen anyone continue to approach the work as if they'd never
        done anything like it before, choosing some completely different way of
        working. And I've never seen anyone carefully follow the recipe in a
        process manual. At best, a process manual gives the worker some ideas.

        It's the process people actually /do/ that has an effect. If you and
        Scott and Glen want to reserve the word "method" for officially blessed
        procedures, go right ahead. It won't change a thing.

        - George

        * George Dinwiddie * http://blog.gdinwiddie.com
        Software Development http://www.idiacomputing.com
        Consultant and Coach http://www.agilemaryland.org
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.