5 ms·

How do you feel about acronyms? Do they improve or hurt communication? From time to time, Musk will send out an e-mail to the entire company to enforce a new p

by Nevaeh 6y ago

How do you feel about acronyms? Do they improve or hurt communication? From time to time, Musk will send out an e-mail to the entire company to enforce a new policy or let them know about something that's bothering him. One of the more famous e-mails arrived in May 2010 with the subject line: Acronyms Seriously Suck: There is a creeping tendency to use made up acronyms at SpaceX. Excessive use of made up acronyms is a significant impediment to communication and keeping communication good as we grow is incredibly important. Individually, a few acronyms here and there may not seem so bad, but if a thousand people are making these up, over time the result will be a huge glossary that we have to issue to new employees. No one can actually remember all these acronyms and people don't want to seem dumb in a meeting, so they just sit there in ignorance. This is particularly tough on new employees. That needs to stop immediately or I will take drastic action - I have given enough warning over the years. Unless an acronym is approved by me, it should not enter the SpaceX glossary. If there is an existing acronym that cannot reasonably be justified, it should be eliminated, as I have requested in the past. For example, there should be not "HTS" [horizontal test stand] or "VTS" [vertical test stand] designations for test stands. Those are particularly dumb, as they contain unnecessary words. A "stand" at our test site is obviously a test stand. VTS-3 is four syllables compared with "Tripod", which is two, so the bloody acronym version actually takes longer to say than the name! The key test for an acronym is to ask whether it helps or hurts communication. An acronym that most engineers outside of SpaceX already know, such as GUI, is fine to use. It is also ok to make up a few acronyms/contractions every now and again, assuming I have approved them, e.g. MVac and M9 instead of Merlin 1C-Vacuum or Merlin 1C-Sea Level, but those need to be kept to a minimum.

abdusco 6y ago
They are detrimental to understanding. I hate them with a passion. I see people using acronyms without explaining them in context, which makes it even more difficult to understand what's written. Some terms are jargon and are probably ubiquitous in the field, but unless I'm reading a text written for the professionals working in that field, I'd much rather see it explained.
- benhurmarcel 6y ago
  > unless I'm reading a text written for the professionals working in that field Most internal communication is made for professionals working in that field.
  - JumpCrisscross 6y ago
    Acronyms have a habit of mutating. Groups using industry-standard acronyms tend to, in my experience, create their own acronyms faster than groups using jargon. It’s too easy to add another letter. Spelling out acronyms in written communication while dropping them when spoken is a good middle ground. If an acronym-compatible phrase is used more than twice, it can be defined at use and then compressed. Though I keep track of how many acronyms I’m forcing the reader to juggle at a time.
- bbarnett 6y ago
  What got me, was explaining SMTP to engineers not familiar with the acronym, who used SNMP, and a guy walked in asking it if was SNTP. Everyone started saying the above as initialisms, or long form, at that point.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
benhurmarcel 6y ago
So does he propose that people always spell out the full name of all components? To me it comes across as selfish, he only wants people to use acronyms that he personally knows, even when they're not talking to him. For instance I work on aircraft. Basically every component has its acronym. Yes, it's hard when you're new to the area. But nobody is going to take the time to write or say "Integrated Drive Generator", "Power Control Unit", or "Over-Pressure Shut-Off Valve" every time. Everyone spends their day referring to components. Most documents have a lexicon however, and there's a web interface to search them.
- hanifc 6y ago
  > So does he propose that people always spell out the full name of all components? To me it comes across as selfish, he only wants people to use acronyms that he personally knows, even when they're not talking to him. I'm curious what makes you attribute that selfish motivation to him? I thought he was pretty clear in saying that it's particularly tough for new employees: "Individually, a few acronyms here and there may not seem so bad, but if a thousand people are making these up, over time the result will be a huge glossary that we have to issue to new employees. No one can actually remember all these acronyms and people don't want to seem dumb in a meeting, so they just sit there in ignorance. This is particularly tough on new employees."
  - mLuby 6y ago
    "No one can actually remember all these acronyms and people don't want to seem dumb in a meeting, so they just sit there in ignorance. This is particularly tough on [me]." Selfishness is a bit too strong a word, but I'd bet he wrote this after a particularly acronym-heavy meeting where he was annoyed at feeling dumb for not following the conversation. So it's a good policy directive that's also self-serving. Also this is a difficulty inherent in micromanaging large organizations, something Musk and Jobs are famous for. Leaders who trust their delegates don't need to understand jargon as much as manager-speak.
    - andrewflnr 6y ago
yodelshady 6y ago
Judging by that, Elon Musk is a seriously smart man. I've worked at places with that tendency, and he's described the issue well. Used too generously, acronyms make it impossible to gauge the complexity of the thing they're describing. Say that my system compromises a CCP, a SBS, and a RCS. That could mean "an afternoon and $1000" to "we need to build an entire supply chain". How do I begin to budget that, financially or mentally, based on three letters? Cynically, is that difficulty the point?
- grayclhn 6y ago
  If your budgeting process relies critically on the number of characters being a good proxy for the value of a service, I don’t think acronyms are the problem. :)
- UncleMeat 6y ago
  It isn't like he is the only person to identify this issue. I think the fact that he wants to personally approve things is an indication that he might not be as smart, since it implies limited trust.
  - robotresearcher 6y ago
    He does not trust the team on this issue, because they have acted contrary to his previous instructions.
- ibeckermayer 6y ago
  If you think that email is impressive, wait until you hear about the other shit this guy’s accomplished
roland35 6y ago
TLAs (Three letter acronyms) are indeed the worst and I try to avoid using any custom ones as well. I worked with a company where the code base was all organized into folders like "MCM" and "PCM" for every module... Of course this list of acronyms was nowhere to be found. It was just one example of many of how big a mess their organization was.
- jagged-chisel 6y ago
  What's worse is multiple unrelated definitions for the same acronym. I worked for an international industrial manufacturer, and their lexicon of acronyms and abbreviations contained many entries with more than one definition.
rojobuffalo 6y ago
i completely agree with that sentiment. even if the audience is familiar, acronyms and abbreviations put a cost on the listener/reader to "unzip" them. in code, in meetings, in communication generally, the priority should be on comprehensibility to the reader/listener, not the convenience of the writer/speaker. we read code at least 10x more than we write it. in a meeting, one person speaks and many people listen.
andrewmcwatters 6y ago
If it's not an industry standard acronym or initialism, don't use it. Internal-specific acronyms and initialisms are a litmus test for smart stupid people: smart enough to build the systems, too stupid to realize no one will understand what they're talking about. See also: enterprise-level companies.
Vinnl 6y ago
It's not the hill I'm going to die on, but I've referred to this email a lot: I'd love for people to stop using acronyms. A somewhat related pet peeve: generic "descriptive" names of projects, which often end up being acronymised eventually too. They're either too generic to be informative, or tend to become inaccurate as requirements change. Additionally, by some kind of regression to the mean they all start to look alike. If there's not a logical short name that applies, then just think of some random name that you think sounds funny, or fits some category that you use for all your products (a coworker of mine suggested French cheeses). Still give as little information about what they are as the "generic" names, but at least they're easily distinguishable and easy to pronounce. (This, too, is not a hill I'll die on, but I'd love to wave a magic wand that would convince everyone of this.)
always_left 6y ago
Anyone know the article that was about how with acronyms it slows the reading comprehension for the whole team whereas it saves you a few seconds to type it out? I really liked it.

by Nevaeh 6y ago

abdusco 6y ago

They are detrimental to understanding. I hate them with a passion. I see people using acronyms without explaining them in context, which makes it even more difficult to understand what's written. Some terms are jargon and are probably ubiquitous in the field, but unless I'm reading a text written for the professionals working in that field, I'd much rather see it explained.

benhurmarcel 6y ago
> unless I'm reading a text written for the professionals working in that field Most internal communication is made for professionals working in that field.
- JumpCrisscross 6y ago
  Acronyms have a habit of mutating. Groups using industry-standard acronyms tend to, in my experience, create their own acronyms faster than groups using jargon. It’s too easy to add another letter. Spelling out acronyms in written communication while dropping them when spoken is a good middle ground. If an acronym-compatible phrase is used more than twice, it can be defined at use and then compressed. Though I keep track of how many acronyms I’m forcing the reader to juggle at a time.
bbarnett 6y ago
What got me, was explaining SMTP to engineers not familiar with the acronym, who used SNMP, and a guy walked in asking it if was SNTP. Everyone started saying the above as initialisms, or long form, at that point.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

benhurmarcel 6y ago

So does he propose that people always spell out the full name of all components? To me it comes across as selfish, he only wants people to use acronyms that he personally knows, even when they're not talking to him. For instance I work on aircraft. Basically every component has its acronym. Yes, it's hard when you're new to the area. But nobody is going to take the time to write or say "Integrated Drive Generator", "Power Control Unit", or "Over-Pressure Shut-Off Valve" every time. Everyone spends their day referring to components. Most documents have a lexicon however, and there's a web interface to search them.

hanifc 6y ago
> So does he propose that people always spell out the full name of all components? To me it comes across as selfish, he only wants people to use acronyms that he personally knows, even when they're not talking to him. I'm curious what makes you attribute that selfish motivation to him? I thought he was pretty clear in saying that it's particularly tough for new employees: "Individually, a few acronyms here and there may not seem so bad, but if a thousand people are making these up, over time the result will be a huge glossary that we have to issue to new employees. No one can actually remember all these acronyms and people don't want to seem dumb in a meeting, so they just sit there in ignorance. This is particularly tough on new employees."
- mLuby 6y ago
  "No one can actually remember all these acronyms and people don't want to seem dumb in a meeting, so they just sit there in ignorance. This is particularly tough on [me]." Selfishness is a bit too strong a word, but I'd bet he wrote this after a particularly acronym-heavy meeting where he was annoyed at feeling dumb for not following the conversation. So it's a good policy directive that's also self-serving. Also this is a difficulty inherent in micromanaging large organizations, something Musk and Jobs are famous for. Leaders who trust their delegates don't need to understand jargon as much as manager-speak.
  - andrewflnr 6y ago

yodelshady 6y ago

Judging by that, Elon Musk is a seriously smart man. I've worked at places with that tendency, and he's described the issue well. Used too generously, acronyms make it impossible to gauge the complexity of the thing they're describing. Say that my system compromises a CCP, a SBS, and a RCS. That could mean "an afternoon and $1000" to "we need to build an entire supply chain". How do I begin to budget that, financially or mentally, based on three letters? Cynically, is that difficulty the point?

grayclhn 6y ago
If your budgeting process relies critically on the number of characters being a good proxy for the value of a service, I don’t think acronyms are the problem. :)
UncleMeat 6y ago
It isn't like he is the only person to identify this issue. I think the fact that he wants to personally approve things is an indication that he might not be as smart, since it implies limited trust.
- robotresearcher 6y ago
  He does not trust the team on this issue, because they have acted contrary to his previous instructions.
ibeckermayer 6y ago
If you think that email is impressive, wait until you hear about the other shit this guy’s accomplished

roland35 6y ago

TLAs (Three letter acronyms) are indeed the worst and I try to avoid using any custom ones as well. I worked with a company where the code base was all organized into folders like "MCM" and "PCM" for every module... Of course this list of acronyms was nowhere to be found. It was just one example of many of how big a mess their organization was.

jagged-chisel 6y ago
What's worse is multiple unrelated definitions for the same acronym. I worked for an international industrial manufacturer, and their lexicon of acronyms and abbreviations contained many entries with more than one definition.

rojobuffalo 6y ago

i completely agree with that sentiment. even if the audience is familiar, acronyms and abbreviations put a cost on the listener/reader to "unzip" them. in code, in meetings, in communication generally, the priority should be on comprehensibility to the reader/listener, not the convenience of the writer/speaker. we read code at least 10x more than we write it. in a meeting, one person speaks and many people listen.

andrewmcwatters 6y ago

If it's not an industry standard acronym or initialism, don't use it. Internal-specific acronyms and initialisms are a litmus test for smart stupid people: smart enough to build the systems, too stupid to realize no one will understand what they're talking about. See also: enterprise-level companies.

Vinnl 6y ago

It's not the hill I'm going to die on, but I've referred to this email a lot: I'd love for people to stop using acronyms. A somewhat related pet peeve: generic "descriptive" names of projects, which often end up being acronymised eventually too. They're either too generic to be informative, or tend to become inaccurate as requirements change. Additionally, by some kind of regression to the mean they all start to look alike. If there's not a logical short name that applies, then just think of some random name that you think sounds funny, or fits some category that you use for all your products (a coworker of mine suggested French cheeses). Still give as little information about what they are as the "generic" names, but at least they're easily distinguishable and easy to pronounce. (This, too, is not a hill I'll die on, but I'd love to wave a magic wand that would convince everyone of this.)

always_left 6y ago

Anyone know the article that was about how with acronyms it slows the reading comprehension for the whole team whereas it saves you a few seconds to type it out? I really liked it.