4 ms·
I note that many of the questions are around the processes, training, rules, etc. that govern the use of technology developed by Uber. This is important. Syste
by NamTaf 12y ago
I note that many of the questions are around the processes, training, rules, etc. that govern the use of technology developed by Uber. This is important.
Systems Engineering teaches the concept of POSTED: People, Organisation, Support, Training, Equipment and Doctrine. When a system is developed, it must give consideration to all of these aspects. Failing to do so means you design an incomplete system.
In this case, Uber has developed a piece of Equipment, their God Mode view. Franken's asking about the other pieces of the system, such as the training, support and doctrine and people. These are equally as important to design, document and implement. Failing to give due consideration to these aspects of the system is no different to having an incomplete equipment solution developed. I'm interested to see whether Uber gave due consideration to these aspects of the system.
There's something to be said about startups moving fast to develop technology but not necessarily the other aspects of a complete system. Mature systems engineering / software development firms do this day in and day out. Yes, it can lead to slower iteration on the core technology and capabilities, but it is critically important to consider. I suspect it's often a pinch point when start-ups try to scale, for example when a piece of technology then needs to consider user access rights, etc.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- srs0001 12y agoI don't think the condescending tone is necessary—there are actually about ten million links if you spell organization correctly. https://www.google.com/search?q=%22People%2C+Organisation%2C+Support%2C+Training%2C+Equipment+and+Doctrine%22#q=People,+Organization,+Support,+Training,+Equipment+and+Doctrine https://www.google.com/search?q=%22People%2C+Organisation%2C... EDIT: Removed quotes.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- andymcsherry 12y agoWhile the condescending tone is unnecessary, logicallee is right. There are actually zero links, Google just removes the quotes and shows results for that. None of them seem to have all the words together or the acronym. Just random occurrences of words on the page, and it's predominantly military documents.
- NamTaf 12y agoThat's because the military are actually really good at doing systems engineering, because it's all about writing requirements specifications, managing acquisitions and testing for delivery against requirements which is the military's bread and butter. Most of my experience in this area has been workign for ex-military people. NASA are also really good at it, and they publish a handbook on it which is very good: (warning: 8.1MB PDF) http://foiaelibrary.gsfc.nasa.gov/_assets/doclibBidder/tech_docs/5.%20NASA%20SP-6105%20Rev%201%20%28Sys%20Eng%20Handbook%29.pdf http://foiaelibrary.gsfc.nasa.gov/_assets/doclibBidder/tech_... They may not refer to the acronym "POSTED" exactly, but said acronym is what I learned and I thought highlighted the scope of what a system covers, specifically that it is not just the equipment i.e.: software. In the NASA SE Handbook, page 3 says the following, which essentially maps across to what I described: "A “system” is a construct or collection of different elements that together produce results not obtainable by the elements alone. The elements, or parts, can include people, hardware, software, facilities, policies, and documents; that is, all things required to produce system-level results."
- jcurbo 12y agoThe problem is that the equivalent (US) military acronym is "DOTMLPF" - Doctrine, Organization, Training, Materiel, Leadership, Personnel, Facilities. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DOTMLPF http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DOTMLPF I'm a systems engineer that works for the military and I've never heard of "POSTED", it may be a NASA thing since they kinda have their own flavor of SE.
- NamTaf 12y agoI'm AU and the guys I deal with are ex-ADF so I don't know. I'm glad that there's a wiki link for that one though, that helps when I next have to reference it :) Same idea either way - the system is far more than just the equipment/technology.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- paulannesley 12y agos/correctly/in the corrupted American form/
- ewood 12y agos/corrupted/alternate/ I favour (!) British spelling too but 'organization' is more correct in the etymological sense as it derives from the latin 'organizo'. The British form is in a way a corruption itself because it favours 'ise' as it is easier than learning the etymology. 'Oxford Spelling' is an etymologically correct variant of British spelling.
- rbsn 12y agoHe did spell organisation correctly, just used British rather than of American English.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- dworin 12y agoSenators also have dozens of staff members who support them, especially on issues they're passionate about or committees they're involved in. And the committees themselves have their own staffs. Most likely one of these staff members is both deeply familiar with these specific issues and contributed heavily to this letter.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- laurencei 12y agoHe's saying that with that many aids and resources, these letters can be produced extremely quickly if the Senator asks for it.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- austinshea 12y agoThis letter is high level, and does not go into extensive detail. Why are you so defensive? The story may have been invented, and it may be accurate. You are making it clear that you have an emotional interest in the story, and the people responding to you are just readers of this website.
- snowwrestler 12y agoThe letter was obviously written by one of his 30+ staff; probably the staffer referenced by name at the end. It's mostly a summary of news reports...not rocket science.