Article

2005-05-01 Home Front: Tech

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Anonymoose 2005-05-01 5:47:29 PM|| || Front Page|| [10 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 The problem with making such a complex, interwoven set of improvements simultaneously is that the probability of failure is multiplicative, not additive. Thus, if each part of the total project has only a 5% chance of failure, but there are twenty sub-projects, the total chance of success is really, really low (the exact answer I leave as an exercise for the reader.) I watched this happen on a product development project Mr. Wife worked on in the mid-80's -- they never did manage to make all the improvements dovetail into a manufacturable product, although they could make it by hand at seven times the maximum consumer-acceptable retail price. In the end, they were able to take a number of the sub-projects and work them into related projects, so the work wasn't lost, but they were never able to realize the dream.

From a management perspective, one super-product would seem to be the most efficient way to go, but unfortunately reality tends to intrude most uncomfortably. I would suggest that the most important bits, eg battlefield-wide instant information sharing, be completed first, then serially develop the other things to fit with that key product.

Posted by trailing wife 2005-05-01 10:46:10 PM|| 2005-05-01 10:46:10 PM|| Front Page Top

23:44 Jack is Back!
23:40 Jack is Back!
23:26 anymouse
23:13 Sock Puppet 0â Doom
23:04 trailing wife
23:03 JosephMendiola
22:56 Jackal
22:55 trailing wife
22:52 .com
22:49 trailing wife
22:48 .com
22:46 trailing wife
22:44 Rex Mundi
22:41 SteveS
22:39 Bomb-a-rama
22:38 Rex Mundi
22:36 Bomb-a-rama
22:31 trailing wife
22:30 Frank G
22:30 Bomb-a-rama
22:29 Bomb-a-rama
22:06 JosephMendiola
21:34 Tony (UK)
21:22 Tony (UK)