3 ms·

I can't build a little software app without going over schedule by approximately double, if I'm lucky. And if I get it wrong the consequence is my boss looks sa

I can't build a little software app without going over schedule by approximately double, if I'm lucky. And if I get it wrong the consequence is my boss looks sad. These guys are building one of the largest most complex gizmos in human history. And if they get it wrong sailors die. So personally I'll cut them a little slack. So it's probably a good thing that I'm not their project manager.

AnimalMuppet 7y ago
I'll cut them this slack: They don't need the Ford. If it never works right, it was wasteful, and embarrassing, and, sure, they really could have used it. But they don't need it the way we needed, say, the Essex class carriers in World War II. The time to experiment with new stuff is precisely when you don't have to have something that works. So throwing all the new razzle-dazzle techniques into one ship, letting them be ironed out or rejected... that's actually not all that crazy.
pmontra 7y ago
The USA built 4 to 6 carriers and their fleet per year during WW2 [1] [2]. They were complex gizmos too back at the time. Ok, the whole county was fully committed to that so it could be an unfair comparison but it shows the difference between wanting to ship a product that works on a tight schedule and trying to build the dream project. Plenty of examples on the history of IT. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essex-class_aircraft_carrier https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essex-class_aircraft_carrier [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence-class_aircraft_carrier https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence-class_aircraft_...
- mythrwy 7y ago
  I have a theory that on the rise of a civilization soon after comes the rise of career bureaucrats who proceed to strangle the civilization and this has been going on since at least the Sumerians.

3 ms·

I can't build a little software app without going over schedule by approximately double, if I'm lucky. And if I get it wrong the consequence is my boss looks sa

by hirundo 7y ago

AnimalMuppet 7y ago
I'll cut them this slack: They don't need the Ford. If it never works right, it was wasteful, and embarrassing, and, sure, they really could have used it. But they don't need it the way we needed, say, the Essex class carriers in World War II. The time to experiment with new stuff is precisely when you don't have to have something that works. So throwing all the new razzle-dazzle techniques into one ship, letting them be ironed out or rejected... that's actually not all that crazy.
pmontra 7y ago
The USA built 4 to 6 carriers and their fleet per year during WW2 [1] [2]. They were complex gizmos too back at the time. Ok, the whole county was fully committed to that so it could be an unfair comparison but it shows the difference between wanting to ship a product that works on a tight schedule and trying to build the dream project. Plenty of examples on the history of IT. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essex-class_aircraft_carrier https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essex-class_aircraft_carrier [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence-class_aircraft_carrier https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence-class_aircraft_...
- mythrwy 7y ago
  I have a theory that on the rise of a civilization soon after comes the rise of career bureaucrats who proceed to strangle the civilization and this has been going on since at least the Sumerians.