Comments on: Too Big to Fail http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2009/10/28/too-big-to-fail/ Self-Experimentation, Scientific Method, the Shangri-La Diet, etc. Sat, 20 Mar 2010 05:50:03 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.7 by: Igor Carron http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2009/10/28/too-big-to-fail/#comment-357096 Sat, 31 Oct 2009 18:15:51 +0000 http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2009/10/28/too-big-to-fail/#comment-357096 It is a big lesson for the customer (the government in this case). O agree, consultants can and do strive in this environment. It is a big lesson for the customer (the government in this case). O agree, consultants can and do strive in this environment.

]]> by: JLD http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2009/10/28/too-big-to-fail/#comment-357073 Sat, 31 Oct 2009 17:21:23 +0000 http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2009/10/28/too-big-to-fail/#comment-357073 <i>The big lessons are that in extremely complex projects, sometimes you should not allow your customer to be able to change your requirements as you go.</i> Wait til you enter real professionnal life. Retired consultant. The big lessons are that in extremely complex projects, sometimes you should not allow your customer to be able to change your requirements as you go.

Wait til you enter real professionnal life.
Retired consultant.

]]> by: Igor Carron http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2009/10/28/too-big-to-fail/#comment-357022 Sat, 31 Oct 2009 14:33:35 +0000 http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2009/10/28/too-big-to-fail/#comment-357022 There may be good reasons sometimes as to why these projects do change in their price tags over time. I have seen several projects like this and clearly remember a prof at MIT showing us why (I need to dig his name up, I think it was Michael Golay, http://web.mit.edu/nse/people/faculty/golay.html). The idea was that in a government projects, the customer (the government) ends up changing the requirements of the project many times over the life of the project. These changes of requirements are extremely bad with regards to the flow of execution of the project. In the space business for instance, there is one example that is pretty interesting: Spacelab, a large cylinder that goes in the shuttle's belly for astronauts to do their experiments. A company ended up designing the same cylinder and eventually sold the services to this new cylinder to NASA. It was pretty obvious that the company's cylinder had cost much less than the original Spacelab built inside NASA. However, as is often the case in comparing gov and private projects, it is a somewhat an unfair comparison as the second cylinder was built with the knowledge of what the first cylinder final requirements were. The big lessons are that in extremely complex projects, sometimes you should not allow your customer to be able to change your requirements as you go. There may be good reasons sometimes as to why these projects do change in their price tags over time. I have seen several projects like this and clearly remember a prof at MIT showing us why (I need to dig his name up, I think it was Michael Golay, http://web.mit.edu/nse/people/faculty/golay.html).

The idea was that in a government projects, the customer (the government) ends up changing the requirements of the project many times over the life of the project. These changes of requirements are extremely bad with regards to the flow of execution of the project.

In the space business for instance, there is one example that is pretty interesting: Spacelab, a large cylinder that goes in the shuttle’s belly for astronauts to do their experiments. A company ended up designing the same cylinder and eventually sold the services to this new cylinder to NASA. It was pretty obvious that the company’s cylinder had cost much less than the original Spacelab built inside NASA. However, as is often the case in comparing gov and private projects, it is a somewhat an unfair comparison as the second cylinder was built with the knowledge of what the first cylinder final requirements were. The big lessons are that in extremely complex projects, sometimes you should not allow your customer to be able to change your requirements as you go.

]]> by: Tom in TX http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2009/10/28/too-big-to-fail/#comment-356596 Fri, 30 Oct 2009 16:52:02 +0000 http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2009/10/28/too-big-to-fail/#comment-356596 "There should be some term for these screw-the-public-they’re-too-stupid-to-realize-it situations." I think they are called "government projects". “There should be some term for these screw-the-public-they’re-too-stupid-to-realize-it situations.”

I think they are called “government projects”.

]]> by: JLD http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2009/10/28/too-big-to-fail/#comment-356446 Fri, 30 Oct 2009 06:51:18 +0000 http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2009/10/28/too-big-to-fail/#comment-356446 Pretty puzzling that being in China you could not identify <a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&edition=us&num=50&q=%E2%80%9Cthree+gorges+dam%E2%80%9D+cost+overruns&btnG=Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi=" rel="nofollow">the matter</a>. Thus the chinese gov't "control" over news is pretty effective. Pretty puzzling that being in China you could not identify the matter.
Thus the chinese gov’t “control” over news is pretty effective.

]]> by: Peter McDonnell http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2009/10/28/too-big-to-fail/#comment-356282 Thu, 29 Oct 2009 23:57:46 +0000 http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2009/10/28/too-big-to-fail/#comment-356282 I suspect that Nathan meant "Three Gorges Dam" I suspect that Nathan meant “Three Gorges Dam”

]]> by: seth http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2009/10/28/too-big-to-fail/#comment-356236 Thu, 29 Oct 2009 20:39:32 +0000 http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2009/10/28/too-big-to-fail/#comment-356236 Nathan, trying to figure out what you are talking about I got this: <blockquote>Your search - "three rivers dam" gigantic cost overruns - did not match any documents.</blockquote> could you provide a link? "boondoogle" isn't right because these projects do work; they just cost vastly more than estimated. Nathan, trying to figure out what you are talking about I got this:

Your search - “three rivers dam” gigantic cost overruns - did not match any documents.

could you provide a link?

“boondoogle” isn’t right because these projects do work; they just cost vastly more than estimated.

]]> by: Nathan Myers http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2009/10/28/too-big-to-fail/#comment-356228 Thu, 29 Oct 2009 20:11:33 +0000 http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2009/10/28/too-big-to-fail/#comment-356228 Haven't you heard of the Three Rivers Dam? Haven’t you heard of the Three Rivers Dam?

]]> by: Darrin Thompson http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2009/10/28/too-big-to-fail/#comment-356093 Thu, 29 Oct 2009 13:15:07 +0000 http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2009/10/28/too-big-to-fail/#comment-356093 I want to say that term is "bailout" but that's overloaded by the connotation that these things are necessary or inevitable. The story is all wrong. "Freedom Torches" would be another one. Not very direct but you get to tell the story of the original PR man promoting cigarettes for mommies. It's got that cynical overtone such a term needs. Or maybe go the other way with morbidly blank words like, "optional public crisis", "public insurance," or "noncompulsary emergency event." I want to say that term is “bailout” but that’s overloaded by the connotation that these things are necessary or inevitable. The story is all wrong.

“Freedom Torches” would be another one. Not very direct but you get to tell the story of the original PR man promoting cigarettes for mommies. It’s got that cynical overtone such a term needs.

Or maybe go the other way with morbidly blank words like, “optional public crisis”, “public insurance,” or “noncompulsary emergency event.”

]]> by: Peter McDonnell http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2009/10/28/too-big-to-fail/#comment-356089 Thu, 29 Oct 2009 13:00:24 +0000 http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2009/10/28/too-big-to-fail/#comment-356089 Hi Seth, I enjoy your blog greatlly. How about "Boondoggle"? as in a boondoggle project, from Wikipedia: "It also refers to government or corporate projects involving large numbers of people and usually heavy expenditure; at some point, the key operators have realized that the project is never going to work, but are reluctant to bring this to the attention of their superiors. Generally there is an aspect of "going through the motions" – for example, continuing research and development – as long as funds are available to keep paying the researchers' and executives' salaries. The situation can be allowed to continue for what seems like unreasonably long periods, as senior management are often reluctant to admit that they allowed a failed project to go on for so long. In many cases, the actual device itself may eventually work, but not well enough to ever recoup its development costs." Hi Seth,
I enjoy your blog greatlly. How about “Boondoggle”? as in a boondoggle project, from Wikipedia: “It also refers to government or corporate projects involving large numbers of people and usually heavy expenditure; at some point, the key operators have realized that the project is never going to work, but are reluctant to bring this to the attention of their superiors. Generally there is an aspect of “going through the motions” – for example, continuing research and development – as long as funds are available to keep paying the researchers’ and executives’ salaries. The situation can be allowed to continue for what seems like unreasonably long periods, as senior management are often reluctant to admit that they allowed a failed project to go on for so long. In many cases, the actual device itself may eventually work, but not well enough to ever recoup its development costs.”

]]>