4 ms·
You do a bit of implicit mapping between terms in your description. Is this correct? * expected => need * unexpected => want * unknown => unknown I think yo
by kaycebasques 3y ago
You do a bit of implicit mapping between terms in your description. Is this correct?
* expected => need
* unexpected => want
* unknown => unknown
I think you're onto something with the focus on failure modes.
It's interesting that your model and the author's model each have 3 layers. A few of the other proposed models in these comments also have 3 layers.
It's quite jarring to try to map your model to the author's model: I guess they are just fundamentally different ways of looking at abstraction?
- pizzafeelsright 3y agoI often wonder if I should be more explicit. Maybe you can help me. There is a path, we are all on a path, linear in the sense that time moves in the same direction, without a pause or ability to stop, and on this path is a fork. We say a fork because it could be an intersection with near infinite courses but in reality we often limit the choice to ultimately two choices and while intentionally ignoring the third. At the fork there is either a Left or a Right. The third choice, intentional or unintentional indecision leaves us still to react to either making a panic choice or hitting the wall. The three layers or levels of abstraction allow for the This, That, and the Unknown. Back to the failure modes. In troubleshooting there are finite paths one can take to determine the problem and also finite problems that cause the situation.