4 ms·

> Not the success criteria some folks have perpetuated or thrust upon the project. This isn't an art project where interpretation is in the eye of the beholder

> Not the success criteria some folks have perpetuated or thrust upon the project. This isn't an art project where interpretation is in the eye of the beholder. This is a taxpayer-funded set of contracts; the success criteria are defined as part of said contracts, they're not "thrust upon" the project by "some folks". Your trickle down benefits would come from any innovative project, whether it were a success or a failure. They'd just be more generally beneficial due to more extensive application in a successful project (and probably more cheaply usable by other areas of industry). Either way they would exist in either scenario: if their existence is what defines success, then failure is impossible.

bluGill 6y ago
In industry when you realize a project is going to fail it is common to pack it with a bunch of marginally related things that you want in your project but cannot afford. Then when they complete what you want you take it for no cost. It makes your project look better on the bottom line (ROI or whatever metric accountants use to judge), and the other project eventually is written off. Would the company be better off just paying for the things they want in each project and accepting a lower ROI is an open question. I just watch the game, not make the rules.
- wombatmobile 6y ago
  Is the project a fail for Lockheed Martin? Didn't they get paid a bunch of money for it? Don't they get paid again each time there's a rev?
  - bluGill 6y ago
    Hard to say. Do they lose reputation? Did they not do something else?
guardiangod 6y ago
>Your trickle down benefits would come from any innovative project, whether it were a success or a failure. Take the $3e11, convert them to physical banknotes, burn all $3e11 bills in Texas last week for warmth, and according to the grandparent the program would still be a success because the money ultimately provided utility to people! >Grandparent: What matters is the objective outcome that comes from this project. No one froze to death! We gained _something_ from the program! Operation successful! /s

bluGill 6y ago

In industry when you realize a project is going to fail it is common to pack it with a bunch of marginally related things that you want in your project but cannot afford. Then when they complete what you want you take it for no cost. It makes your project look better on the bottom line (ROI or whatever metric accountants use to judge), and the other project eventually is written off. Would the company be better off just paying for the things they want in each project and accepting a lower ROI is an open question. I just watch the game, not make the rules.

wombatmobile 6y ago
Is the project a fail for Lockheed Martin? Didn't they get paid a bunch of money for it? Don't they get paid again each time there's a rev?
- bluGill 6y ago
  Hard to say. Do they lose reputation? Did they not do something else?

guardiangod 6y ago

>Your trickle down benefits would come from any innovative project, whether it were a success or a failure. Take the $3e11, convert them to physical banknotes, burn all $3e11 bills in Texas last week for warmth, and according to the grandparent the program would still be a success because the money ultimately provided utility to people! >Grandparent: What matters is the objective outcome that comes from this project. No one froze to death! We gained _something_ from the program! Operation successful! /s