5 ms·

>This means every time there's a question, it has to be submitted through a formal process, tracked, answered, documented. I don't know why you think proper ch

>This means every time there's a question, it has to be submitted through a formal process, tracked, answered, documented. I don't know why you think proper change control is a bad thing. In both software and systems engineering you submit change requests that are tracked, reviewed, assessed for risk, approved and documented. You do this to create an audit trail to identify "how we got here". Any concerns? It's documented in the ticket. Now when it comes to civil engineering projects, where bridges can collapse, you should WANT that kind of rigorous change control of tracking, approving, and documenting. Yes, documenting change control requires more work, but it also saves lives and creates an audit trail in case of a grave error.

aeturnum 9y ago
I think you're misreading his comment. It's not bad, it's just more expensive than not doing it. Thus, infrastructure built today costs more.
- droopyEyelids 9y ago
  I think he read the comment mostly right, and you're both missing there is a gaussian distribution to the effectiveness of change control
BurningFrog 9y ago
OP points out the costs of this. You point out the benefits. Both true. But the interesting question is if and when the costs outweigh the benefits.
- coding123 9y ago
  Well and perhaps even more interesting is the effect on delayed fixes has on TCO and safety of aging roads. Not to mention reduction in jobs sites across the Nation also reduces the individual performance of infrastructure construction companies except for a lucky few. Lots of push and pull from all directions.
tormeh 9y ago
Delegating responsibility down to the coal face is usually a winner for speed, and when time is money speed is important.
imgabe 9y ago
I'm not saying changes shouldn't be documented. I'm saying the people on the ground doing the work should be more empowered to use their judgement. They can do that and still document what gets changed. As it stands now, some unforeseen circumstance in the field will necessitate a minor modification to the design. The contractor knows perfectly well what needs to be done, but instead of simply doing it, they will ask the designers to tell them to do it, so they aren't the ones responsible for it. The designer of course can't simply rubber stamp whatever the contractor says, so they have to spend time figuring out what the issue is and whether the contractor's solution is adequate. All that adds up.
- akshatpradhan 9y ago
  >As it stands now, some unforeseen circumstance in the field will necessitate a minor modification to the design. The contractor knows perfectly well what needs to be done, but instead of simply doing it, they will ask the designers to tell them to do it, so they aren't the ones responsible for it. You always want peer review, even for a minor modifications. We have a similar process called code review.

aeturnum 9y ago

I think you're misreading his comment. It's not bad, it's just more expensive than not doing it. Thus, infrastructure built today costs more.

droopyEyelids 9y ago
I think he read the comment mostly right, and you're both missing there is a gaussian distribution to the effectiveness of change control

BurningFrog 9y ago

OP points out the costs of this. You point out the benefits. Both true. But the interesting question is if and when the costs outweigh the benefits.

coding123 9y ago
Well and perhaps even more interesting is the effect on delayed fixes has on TCO and safety of aging roads. Not to mention reduction in jobs sites across the Nation also reduces the individual performance of infrastructure construction companies except for a lucky few. Lots of push and pull from all directions.

tormeh 9y ago

Delegating responsibility down to the coal face is usually a winner for speed, and when time is money speed is important.

imgabe 9y ago

I'm not saying changes shouldn't be documented. I'm saying the people on the ground doing the work should be more empowered to use their judgement. They can do that and still document what gets changed. As it stands now, some unforeseen circumstance in the field will necessitate a minor modification to the design. The contractor knows perfectly well what needs to be done, but instead of simply doing it, they will ask the designers to tell them to do it, so they aren't the ones responsible for it. The designer of course can't simply rubber stamp whatever the contractor says, so they have to spend time figuring out what the issue is and whether the contractor's solution is adequate. All that adds up.

akshatpradhan 9y ago
>As it stands now, some unforeseen circumstance in the field will necessitate a minor modification to the design. The contractor knows perfectly well what needs to be done, but instead of simply doing it, they will ask the designers to tell them to do it, so they aren't the ones responsible for it. You always want peer review, even for a minor modifications. We have a similar process called code review.