What the Pilot Wanted Cartoons

[Buster11]

Does anyone have a copy of a sequence of cartoons called What the Pilot Wanted that he could copy to me please? It started with a swing hung from a tree branch, followed by several drawings showing how this was interpreted by various departments, including 'elfin safety's version, with the branch cut off and the swing on the ground. Mine is presumably buried somewhere in the Misc. Docs. department of Buster11 Towers.

[Lantern10]

Google swing designed by committee

[MarcK]

There are a lot of variants of this one:
https://stevensonfinancialmarketing.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/funny_sales_marketing_cartoon_tree_swing_new_product.png

[622]

Im stealling that for work! :)

[Buster11]

Many thanks, MarcK. Shows how long ago mine was, as it was B&W. I'll see if anyone can come up with others; the one I had was military, with one of the interpretations being MoD (PE)'s version.

[Hot 'n' High]

There is a software design version which I like.

Richards guide to software developmentHOW THE SOFTWAREis designed.80%HOW MUCH TIME HAS TO 4 8 SPENT / software development :: comics (funny comics & strips, cartoons) / funny pictures & best jokes: comics, images, video, humor, gif animation - i lol& (http://joyreactor.com/post/572896)


https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/974x741/53e5e0c4_bf95_4a04_9927_4ab3d35ed236_f67f52b90c45100d5543b1a 3e56a85764dcbc8d4.png



The bit for me in this, when I did a PM role for a major IT "development", was the "What the Customer Really Wanted" box. It was spot on!!!!

My IT suppliers (the DCSA) were doing their nut and didn't believe me when I kept on saying that the customer had no idea at all what they wanted so I could not give them any Specs. I explained that we'd just need to roll out more of what they already had to the new people despite the fact it was meant to "transform how they worked" and that they'd just have to put in RFCs to modify it once they figured out how they wanted to "transform" once they were up and running.

Eventually, after a major meeting with the customers and suppliers in the same room, the DCSA realised that H 'n' H was not deranged (well, at least not completely deranged) and that my suggestion was the only solution. Never did find out whether any RFCs got raised as, directly after "Go Live" I left the Post! Not, it was planned that way ... and not by me .... before anyone accuses me of being "a rat abandoning a sinking ship"!!!! :ok:

Eek, eek!!!!! H 'n' H

PS Buster11, I recall the one you do but, sadly, don't have a copy.

[cliver029]

first seen by me at Control Data in 1976:zzz:

[Hot 'n' High]

first seen by me at Control Data in 1976:zzz:

Bet in 2076 they'll still be using it too! :ok: I may pop back then to check on my prediction - and my step-kids should still be alive so I can do a bit of "haunting" at the same time!!! The little bu@@ers deserve it!!! :E

[Imagegear]

Found on t' internet - not able to credit...

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/82/61/19/82611937cbf37e47e56e1f77a0694eb3.jpg

[Jhieminga]

That last one is reminiscent of a Bob Stevens cartoon, but I cannot be sure.

[sycamore]

H`n H`.....strongly advise you Not ,REPEAT NOT to look at `NSFW(6488) on that website....!!

[racedo]

There is a software design version which I like.


and that my suggestion was the only solution. Never did find out whether any RFCs got raised as, directly after "Go Live" I left the Post! Not, it was planned that way ... and not by me .... before anyone accuses me of being "a rat abandoning a sinking ship"!!!! :ok:
.

Every piece of major software I have seen implemented for a large entity did not work with one exception. Sacking of the development team and implementors shortly after go live was the standard. The one that worked pretty much held promotions off for 18 months during project, every one on project had a role to go into, were rewarded for their work and 12 months post implementation they went back to understand what worked, what didn't, what retraining was needed and retrain again.

Unsurprisingly their investment worked. Their requirement to be on the project in the first place was a minimum of on target (or plus) for 2 yrs running, this to be even considered rather than the let us get rid of this idiot out of the dept onto a project of others.

[tdracer]

Imagegear - there was a variation on that cartoon on one of the first pages of my college textbook on aircraft design (the class was taught by the guy who literally wrote the book).

The part of that always stuck in my mind was the weights group - the aircraft skin was "unobtainium, one mil thick" :E (the mention of 'unobtainium' when watching Avatar always brings that back :p).

This one has always been one of my favorites (a copy graced my desk at work for many years):

https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/445x244/miracle_cartoon_a4d7ed13b546ab6a1f2f53b70d893aee4921d429.jpg
It also comes frighteningly close to some of the Laplace Transformations I had to show back in my college controls class...:eek:

[Hot 'n' High]

H`n H`.....strongly advise you Not ,REPEAT NOT to look at `NSFW(6488) on that website....!!

Err, not had a chance to check sycamore. Why, is it showing something a Pilot may want????? Praps I'll look later!!!!!!!!! Got to reply to tdracer first.....


This one has always been one of my favorites (a copy graced my desk at work for many years):

https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/445x244/miracle_cartoon_a4d7ed13b546ab6a1f2f53b70d893aee4921d429.jpg
It also comes frighteningly close to some of the Laplace Transformations I had to show back in my college controls class...:eek:

tdracer, for me to get a Laplace Transform correct did take a "miracle". To this day I have no idea how I ever passed that part of my Degree Course!!!!! :}

Maybe I applied the same technique as I did to my one and only rock-climbing effort in 1981 under the watchful eye of a "kindly" RM Instructor - having explained to him that I didn't really "do" heights (tho flying S&L, Inverted, Unusual Attitudes is no problem!!!!! Bring that on!!!!!). It took me 10 minutes to climb 6 ft up a 30 ft cliff - along with a continuous torrent of abuse from the Bootneck up above at the top. The last thing I recall doing was shouting up, "Where can I put my hand next???" which only elicited a further torrent of abuse! :\

The next thing I recall is being at the top ..... with a VERY startled Bootneck Instructor looking at me thus..... :eek:!

"H 'n' H, how the fu£& did you manage that? I couldn't even pull the e££ing safety rope in fast enough! If you'd fallen you'd have been a gonner!! Don't you ever do that sort of thing again!!!". "Staff, I have no e££ing idea how I got here, the last I recall was I was wayyyy down there!". We both looked at each other in silence and then, in a very calm voice but with a dying echo of panic still there, the Bootneck said, "H 'n' H, if it's OK with you Sunshine, I think we should skip the rest of rock-climbing for you, don't you?". At that point the Bootneck and I were on exactly the same wavelength!!!! :ok: And, nope, I do not remember the intervening 24 ft (or however many it was)!!!!

[meleagertoo]

The original cartoon referred to was inded black and white and I first saw it in 1983
There were only six iterations, the first, "What the Pilot Wanted" was a swing hanging from a tree branch and ended up with "What MOD PE Installed" - some kind of lash-up that I forget.

[Hot 'n' High]

T.. some kind of lash-up that I forget.

meleagertoo, are you referring to (a) the device, (b) MoD(PE) or (c) both??????? ;)

[Jhieminga]

Probably this one with some changes in the captions. It has been around for many years (article about it here: https://www.businessballs.com/amusement-stress-relief/tree-swing-cartoon-pictures-early-versions/).
https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/752x476/08e0040c1a2e343e7ab2db69bcee65fb_e65989c9de551dd19cfe14cda88 62e4bd1e3cf20.jpg

[Saintsman]

I've been involved in numerous projects where the customer didn't know what they really wanted. They had an idea that they needed something and it was left to us to define it.

Of course we knew what was required, but once we had defined it, it was too expensive. So it was chopped and changed and later changed again when the customer thought about it.

So in the end they got what they didn't really want, for more than they wanted to spend and of course late.

I'm sure this'll sound familiar to quite a few...

[Hot 'n' High]

Just for Saintsman!!! :ok:


https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/640x287/rqts_cfad3c6f629334a91aa957827315fb16e5e321f9.gif

[Imagegear]

That's all you need to see after the client says:.... "and we will require a fixed price proposal with penalties for non-conformance, by the way we have already written the specification so we won't be needing any consultancy.".

It is important not to laugh loudly at this stage, because it might be taken the wrong way and get you shoed out the door, but sometimes one just cannot help it.

Later you might be awarded promotion or a salary increase, but more often than not - you get shown the door. :}

[Hot 'n' High]

Oops! Sorry! Tis a minefield!

[mgahan]

Many, many, too many times over the past 20 years or so I've been faced with clients who "knew" what they wanted (e.g. "silver fountain pen" or "that electronic strip display I saw at the trade show last month" ) but could not state their requirements in any way, manner, shape or form that would enable development of technical specifications. Trying to get operational folk to understand the logical flow from performance/outcome to functional requirements to operational requirements to technical requirements to technical specifications is nigh on impossible in 99 cases out of 100. Do you really care if the yellow wire is 2cm or 2.35cm long if the gizmo performs as you need it to ?

Let the people hoping to supply the gizmo show you in their proposal that it can match your performance/outcomes requirements (and comply with any necessary "standards"). Then test it to see if it meets those performance and outcomes based requirements. Does how it does that, as long as it complies with the standards, really matter operationally? After a very long slog we finally convinced the powers that be to replace "radar" with "ATS Surveillance system" and define that system in performance and outcomes terms. Look how we have been able to move ahead in performance and cost effectiveness.

I have actually been involved in an acceptance testing activity where the system met and in many cases exceeded all the technical requirements but as they were the only ones stated in the RFT had to be contractually accepted but could not be commissioned to operational use because it did not meet the operational requirement.

PM me if you want a copy of a half page performance and outcomes based description of ASMGCS, which has also been used to define the requirements for a prison surveillance system and the security system for an apartment block. .

[cynicalint]

Thread drift, but I found Dilbert cartoons a great sanity saver during my time at the MOD. Each of these examples below were personified in at lease one Dilbert cartoon.
https://dilbert.com/

1. Submitted a business case for a change to a local IT system,which we had trialed and worked. The civil servant accountant's response was "This obviously works in practice, but does not meet our theoretical thresholds and must be declined. "

2. As SO2, MOD Customer 2, submitted a user requirement for a replacement classified IT system. Shabbywood IPT Team leader employs top rate consultant to determine Customer requirement, I was Interviewed by said Shabbywood 'consultant' who submitted my original requirement document with different logo, headers and footers but at an additional cost of £25,000 for his time (2 hours at most!).

3. Asked contractor for interconnecting linkage from one system to another and was told MOD would need to 'pull out the cheque-book', as this would need research, development and implementation. Contractor then shown original system contract which stated that their system should have a built in ability to connect with the IT system I wanted to connect to in the following 2 years. connection subsequently made in 2 days at no cost.

Sometimes, it is the contractor that milks the system assuming the requester has no idea and will agree to anything they say. It is not always the Services that changes the requirement and has to fend off stupid questions such as "do you want a 10 millisecond response, 100 millisecond response or a 1 second response when you switch the system on?" The difference in cost between 10 milliseconds and 1 second was immense. IT designers tend to try and use microscopic techniques to answer a requirement where a hand-held magnifying glass is more than accurate enough.

[MarcK]

We built a special box for a Mil customer. After delivery, customer wanted a minor change, so we sent him a new ROM to plug in. Shortly after, I was visited by the IG who told me that the purchasing agent needed to be involved, or else.

[unmanned_droid]

This one usually covers it for me:

https://dcstructural.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Dilbert-Comic1.jpeg

[Hot 'n' High]

.......

Sometimes, it is the contractor that milks the system assuming the requester has no idea and will agree to anything they say. It is not ........

Too true! For one system I looked after for a while there was a Test Set for some routine 2nd Line work - every 24 months IIR. The RAF had used the system but the FAA picked it up as a UOR (It will be out of service again in a few months - yer, right!). Over a decade down the line I just happened to be looking after the kit for the FAA and decided, purely as I had a spare slot in my diary, to attend a PDS meeting for the System (I used to generally send my system Boffin who was great but, now and again, I'd pitch up to see what was what and to put the Company on edge = "Why's H 'n' H here this time????!!!" :E)

A while into the meeting, the next Agenda Item was that the RAF were about to sign on the dotted line for an updated (due to obsolescence) Test Set (3 sets at several £000,000s each) when I glanced at my Boffin who shrugged back at me - no, he'd not come across this Test Set either - we worked well as a team! I innocently asked the Company to explain why it was needed, etc, etc, etc. Along with knowing looks from the RAF, it seemed that this Test Set (which we didn't have and so had never used in over a Decade - after all, our UOR was only going to be in service for a few months so why bother with all the Test Sets) was absolutely essential to ensure some bit didn't "blow up" and thereby lead to multiple crashes on local Primary Schools etc, etc, etc.

I asked the RAF how many had "blown up" to which the answer was "Zero - but we do the 24 monthly!". I happened to have, for another reason, our total lifetime Fleet hours to hand so I explained that, in a shed load of operational hours, we'd had Zero "explosions" too but we didn't have this Test Set!! The Company, bless their cotton socks, then said "Don't panic, don't panic!!! Quick, we'll up the order to 4 sets and make sure you have the procedure and you can start the testing! All is not lost, that's good you were here! That's another £000,000 please!".

However, my RAF counterpart was not daft and had clocked where I was heading with this - and he quietly put down his pen. "So <<Company>>, can you explain, if the FAA have had zero failures in x hours (where x was quite a high number!) why we need to do this Test?". The silence was deafening but I was now being glared at by all the Company peeps from all round the table - so I smiled sweetly back with my best "little innocent ol' me" look. The requisition was silently slid back, unsigned, to the company and the pen went back into the RAF's top pocket.

The RAF chap bought me a beer in bar afterwards and, following a further investigation by the RAF, I was advised the RAF had formally removed the process from the Servicing Schedule a few weeks later as a "Savings Measure". Oh, yes, I never did get a Christmas Card from <<Company>> that year! :ok:

[Minnie Burner]

https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/816x464/shornet_3ac32d38b1e061e33ef620afd5eee5981cd08ef5.jpg
What the pilot wanted










https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/467x716/shican_a371553289f98742a684c344457494654fd53477.jpg
What Whitehall wanted









https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/698x440/b_35_2d0d9ace3b5304ba629c3f1d62ec55b1a5e55610.jpg
What was delivered