Subject:	Blind Faith Of Managers
Date:	1999/06/28
Author:	Paul Milne <fedinfo@halifax.com>
	Posting History

From: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/roleigh_martin/chalnger.htm   On the Space Shuttle Challenger Tragedy.   -------   Feynman not only discovered the now-famous O-ring failure point and the chain of interconnected events that led to the explosion, he also uncovered serious flaws in the way NASA conceived of and managed reliability assessment and control. In the end, his discovery resulted in an almost complete overhaul of the way NASA operated and put the agency on the road toward eventual partial privatization. The first lesson we can learn is that even NASA, a heretofore paragon of technology and technical management, can misjudge fatally. Not a comforting thought.   First, Feynman found a wild disparity between NASA managements assessment of reliability of the Shuttle and that of the working engineers. All of the following quotes are from his appendix to the Rogers Committee Report. He wrote,   "It appears that there are enormous differences of opinion as to the probability of a failure with loss of vehicle and of human life. The estimates range from roughly 1 in 100 to 1 in 100,000. The higher figures [0.01] come from the working engineers, and the very low figures [0.00001] from management. What are the causes and consequences of this lack of agreement?"   As reality verified the engineers much higher estimate of the probability of failure, Feynman was more blunt in his questioning.   "What is the cause of management's fantastic faith in the machinery?"   Why NASA management was, in the end, so determined to "fool themselves" emerges in Feynmans understated conclusion to this part of his analysis: mutually-reinforced wishful thinking in the face of external pressure for an "acceptable answer."   "Finally, if we are to replace standard numerical probability usage with engineering judgment, why do we find such an enormous disparity between the management estimate and the judgment of the engineers? It would appear that, for whatever purpose, be it for internal or external consumption, the management of NASA exaggerates the reliability of its product, to the point of fantasy [italics authors]."   There is a certain amount of lip-service given to full regression testing, but when considering the dearth of tools at the required scale of size (tens of thousands of programs) and scope of heterogeneity (many kinds of platforms and languages of many different vintages), this rings hollow. Regression testing is realistically being considered in only a local, not in a true enterprise-system-wide environment. This is most likely our blow-by in the O-rings; in integration testing we will see testing and retesting "explode" and consume the time remaining until the turn of the century. And there is no substitute for thorough testing, no other saving that can make up for that.     ========     And that is exactly what management has. 'Faith'. Confidence NOT based upoin any evidence at all, but just mere unsupported 'faith'. Not 'faith' based upon the objective results of full scale regression tresting. Just plain faith. Faith because they HAVE to do it. And they are not doing it.   Actually, it is not even 'blind faith' . It is something even more prenicious than that.  To paraphrase another, I think it was Upton Sinclair: We are depending upon these managers to SEE what is going on when their very livelihoods are dependent upon them NOT seeing what is going on.   This is a 100% guarantee of socio-economic collapse.   All this nonsense about being 'done' is only relevant to an extremely small fraction of the totality of any one company's systems; their Mission Critical Systems. A company announces that they are substantially complinat or even done. But, in reality, they are talking about only a fraction of their systems. Out of the billions of Lines Of Code Out there, only a minute fraction is even being looked at. It is not being tested properly and the managers are lying about it.   Morons like dechert, brock, egan, and Pee Wee sherman can't grasp it. And they are able to spew their vile nonsense about and maintain a very high level of unpreparedness among the majority of the population.   It will not be the failed code that cause the ultimate problems. It will be the unpreparedness FOR the problems caused by the unremediated code. And that is why the ilk named above are especially reprehensible. And even wildly more reprehensible for the fact that they maintain that they DO NOT dissuade from preparation when their actions are the very definition of dissuasion.       Paul Milne

-- a (a@a.a), June 29, 1999

Answers

The Upton Sinclair bit is the best quote that I have seen on this subject.

-- dave (wootendave@hotmail.com), June 29, 1999.

Dave,

Right you are, and that quote applies not only to management, but to most of the people I talk to about this matter. Same deal. And as far as the Feynman material, I think if that great man was still with us he might just say "Why, it's deja vu all over again."

-- Gordon (gpconnolly@aol.com), June 29, 1999.

Gordon,

Feynman was a great man indeed. I was accepted as a student at Cal Tech in 1961, and if I had decided to go there instead of MIT, I would have had the awesome experience of sitting through (and probably not understanding) his freshman physics lectures that eventually got published in a book entitled (if I remember correctly), Six Easy Pieces.

But while the O-ring story has a lot of obvious relevance to the Y2K situation, it's important to remember that Feynman exhibited his brilliance in the hearings that took place after the Challenger disaster. I wonder whether anyone would have listened to him, or whether he would have been able to successfully challenge the NASA bureaucracy, with his O-ring demonstration (when he dunked it in a beaker of ice water) <>i>before that fatal launch.

Obviously, that's the situation we're in now. If indeed Y2K turns out to be a disaster, some Congressional panel will probably be convened, and they'll probably be able to find some brilliant, eloquent scientist (alas, neither Feynman nor Sagan are with us any longer -- maybe they'll get Stephen Hawkings) to explain what should have been obvious all along. And the public will be dazzled and inspired ... but it will be too late.

I don't see any obvious answer to this dilemma.

Ed

-- Ed Yourdon (ed@newmexico.hills), June 29, 1999.

"All this nonsense about being 'done' is only relevant to an extremely small fraction of the totality of any one company's systems; their Mission Critical Systems. A company announces that they are substantially complinat or even done. But, in reality, they are talking about only a fraction of their systems. Out of the billions of Lines Of Code Out there, only a minute fraction is even being looked at. It is not being tested properly and the managers are lying about it."

So...how do you know every manager at every corporation is lying?

At my company, when we say "mission critical", that's the majority of our application and also related systems.

With mature systems that have been around a while, the core code becomes very stable with minor maintenance and such to be done. So then customers focus on the "nice to have" bit, and what company in their right mind would turn down money.

So my answer is "so what". That report that you don't really need that might fundge a date isn't going to crash the system. It isn't "Mission critical".

By the way, I didn't say that anybody should stop preparing, for the record, before we get started on that again.

-- JAW (clueless@pollyanna.com), June 29, 1999.

JAW, quit flapping it. Your e-mail says the rest.

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), June 30, 1999.

All the companies and government agencies talk about "mission- critical" systems. If the noncompliant so-called non-critical systems remain interconnected to the mission-critical ones, won't they corrupt the mission-critical systems? This is one of the fallacies that we should be using to confront the spinners.

-- Mr. Adequate (mr@adequate.com), June 30, 1999.

Gosh, we had a pretty good, civil post going here until Will continue had to add that brilliant piece of commentary. Why don't you go to the "teen talk" chat room on AOL and dazzle them with your superior intellect? I'm not sure what's sadder - the fact that you would fit in there so well, or the fact that you haven't seen your teens in a VERY long time (but no one would know it based on your maturity level).

But hey, if it was just one of those drunken late night posts, just let us know, we all have friends or relatives who have gone through it.

-- Max (_@_._), June 30, 1999.

As I recall, the o-ring problems were well known BEFORE that fatal launch. The problem was ambient temperature, and the problem was recongnized. Below a certain point, the o-rings wouldn't work right. So, you didn't lauch if the temperature was too low. In the fatal lauch, "anagement" decided to go ahead, anyway, despite the temperature being too low, because of some POLITICAL considerations (which I don't recall). There may have been a detailed post regarding this, on this forum, but many months ago.

-- A (A@AisA.com), June 30, 1999.

All the companies and government agencies talk about "mission- critical" systems. If the noncompliant so-called non-critical systems remain interconnected to the mission-critical ones, won't they corrupt the mission-critical systems? This is one of the fallacies that we should be using to confront the spinners.

Well, should this happen, then the system passing bad data was really "mission critical". Those that are not mission critical can go away, or can stay broken for a while. If a system like this feeds data to mission critical systems, it is part of the critical path, so therefore, it IS critical.

-- JAW (clueless@pollyanna.com), June 30, 1999.

Max is correct. My outburst was uncalled for. My level of patience has been exceeded by my level of frustration. I'm facing the Fourth of July weekend in *complete* contempt of my President and his 'associates'. I am witnessing one more missed deadline of a series of them. I find it difficult to comprehend the continued 'nit-picing' of insignificant details at this late stage of the game. *JULY 1999* However, there is simply no excuse for loosing my cool in THIS particular case, and I apologize sincerely for having done so. JAWS had every right to offer his technical opinion (of which I have no knowledge of myself). I shall do my best to 'check' my emotions as I go from one thread to the next, in the future.

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), July 01, 1999.

Will,

Very adult of you. Sometimes threads here get pretty juvenile.

Apology accepted. Thank you for noting the technical explanation.

-- JAW (clueless@pollyanna.com), July 01, 1999.

Thanks JAW, now I will be able to grill hot dogs with a clear conscious. Please note, I tend to be a tough bitch and find it to be useful. Tread lightly, my friend (-grin-), and enjoy the upcoming fireworks (this weekend, that is). hahaahahoohooooo

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), July 01, 1999.

JAW, Will -

Thank you.

I have a sense that many posters to this forum, despite the labels of "polly" and "doomer", are actually in "violent agreement". Our common foe is the general ignorance and apathy of the populace in the face of very real risks. Flint has actually made what the majority of the US would say are "serious preps", as has Mr. Decker, as has BigDog, as have many of us. Most of our neighbors (whether next door or within walking distance) have not. It is this lack of preparedness that is the real enemy.

Your mature handling of that exchange is exactly how we have to handle these situations. Grace under pressure and a willingness to both apologize and to "get over it" will be as vital as any items we stockpile.

Thanks.

-- Mac (sneak@lurk.hid), July 01, 1999.

Thank YOU Mac......don't push your luck. I'm not THAT flexible. We are 'still' going to be 'certain' personalities under any conditions that may transpire! Look beyond the print that is abundantly provided. LOL

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), July 01, 1999.

Yeah, Will, piss off Mac!

LOL

Just kidding. Couldn't resist!

yer cool with me, Mac, and yer right.

-- JAW (clueless@pollyanna.com), July 01, 1999.