4 ms·

When I'm tackling an engineering problem, that is how I do it. Not with ignorance of facts that I don't like, or heartfelt sentiments that don't solve the probl

When I'm tackling an engineering problem, that is how I do it. Not with ignorance of facts that I don't like, or heartfelt sentiments that don't solve the problem. I sit down and science the shit out of it. I use data, model the problem, create plausible solutions, math the metrics from those to form differentiation. I do this on a weekly basis. What I listed isn't supposed to be a specific methodology that one uses to accomplish any engineering task; it's a very general representation for how to approach a problem from an engineering perspective. I have no idea what you mean by "teams with proper objectives... not a guarantee". Yes the CEO of Boeing is not a team, he is the team leader; he has all the resources he could possibly need to accomplish this task, and I think that his biggest problem is that his motivations are shit, which is why he is playing the politician instead of kicking his company into high gear to keep any more of the planes from falling out of the sky. And nothing is guaranteed, ever... Are you trolling me? Was that a troll comment? Can't make sense of what you're trying to say, other than telling me I'm wrong. Edit: changed "most" to "very" to sound less pompous.

manigandham 7y ago
> Not with ignorance of facts that I don't like, or heartfelt sentiments that don't solve the problem. I sit down and science the shit out of it. This isn't a TV show. Being an engineer or having an engineering background doesn't turn you into a machine. Nobody works in a perfectly rational vacuum like you describe. Engineers solve technical problems, but how you solve those problems is a process that usually involves many people with defined responsibilities and procedures to produce an outcome, dependent on the proper resources and objectives. This process is needed precisely because of the fallibility of humans, and even then it can still fail, which is why this problem happened in the first place. The role of a CEO is specifically not one of solving technical problems so this isn't applicable anyway, but this Boeing disaster is an outcome of both poor engineering and business practices.
- craftinator 7y ago
  Yes, it's not a TV show, which is why I used my own real world example. How do you approach an engineering problem? You've complained about my methodology, but haven't offered any alternative... Rational approaches are how an irrational person can solve real world problems. I realize the role of the CEO, and I was specifically responding to the many claims that "he is an engineer". He isn't approaching this problem like an engineer, as I've said twice now, he's approaching it politically. That may be the status quo for CEO behaviour, but it is a strong deviation from an engineering approach. I also stated that this problem was caused in the first place by Boeing's business practices hamstringing their engineering practices. They have many, many amazing engineers at Boeing, many of whom voiced objections to the rush jobs and regulation gerrymandering that Boeing's business side (run specifically by the CEO) used to get this aircraft flying before it was safe. The outcome of this is very visible.

manigandham 7y ago

> Not with ignorance of facts that I don't like, or heartfelt sentiments that don't solve the problem. I sit down and science the shit out of it. This isn't a TV show. Being an engineer or having an engineering background doesn't turn you into a machine. Nobody works in a perfectly rational vacuum like you describe. Engineers solve technical problems, but how you solve those problems is a process that usually involves many people with defined responsibilities and procedures to produce an outcome, dependent on the proper resources and objectives. This process is needed precisely because of the fallibility of humans, and even then it can still fail, which is why this problem happened in the first place. The role of a CEO is specifically not one of solving technical problems so this isn't applicable anyway, but this Boeing disaster is an outcome of both poor engineering and business practices.

craftinator 7y ago
Yes, it's not a TV show, which is why I used my own real world example. How do you approach an engineering problem? You've complained about my methodology, but haven't offered any alternative... Rational approaches are how an irrational person can solve real world problems. I realize the role of the CEO, and I was specifically responding to the many claims that "he is an engineer". He isn't approaching this problem like an engineer, as I've said twice now, he's approaching it politically. That may be the status quo for CEO behaviour, but it is a strong deviation from an engineering approach. I also stated that this problem was caused in the first place by Boeing's business practices hamstringing their engineering practices. They have many, many amazing engineers at Boeing, many of whom voiced objections to the rush jobs and regulation gerrymandering that Boeing's business side (run specifically by the CEO) used to get this aircraft flying before it was safe. The outcome of this is very visible.