What the Pilot Wanted Cartoons
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Melbourne Australia
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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. .
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. .
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.
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.
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.
)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!
