[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Engineering Newsletter
- To: T.L.G.vanderLinden@student.utwente.nl, firstname.lastname@example.org, RUSSESS@cellpro.cellpro.com, email@example.com, David@interworld.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, KellySt@aol.com
- Subject: Re: Engineering Newsletter
- From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Zenon Kulpa)
- Date: Mon, 15 Jan 96 14:02:24 +0100
- Address: Swietokrzyska 21, 00-049 Warszawa, POLAND
- Cc: email@example.com
- Organization: Institute of Fundamental Technological Research
> From KellySt@aol.com Fri Jan 12 03:34:37 1996
> No its more fundamental than that. Theirs just too many people. The more
> people the more corrdination efforts. For example I worked in the Space
> Station Freedom headquarters along with a few thousand other people. NONE of
> us actually worked on the space station. We worked to coordinate information
> between all the groups. The more people, the harder it is to keep everyone
> informed. On a big goverment project, everyone has to know what everyone
> else is doing. The more agencies, the more paths of interaction. Since
> governments tend to demand everything is monitored to the finest detail. The
> vast bulk (maybe 80%-90%) of the group effort is in meeting and reports to
> keep everyone else informed.
The key phrase is:
"Since governments tend to demand everything
[, everything] is monitored to the finest detail",
"just too many people".
80%-90% of this "coordination" is not necessary.
Did all people involved really READ (with attention)
ALL that "coordination" stuff?
Put the task as a question of survival
(of the humanity, of the company, of the people involved...)
instead of as a government project that must be reported back
in all, important or not, details - and the effectiveness
rises several times (if not orders of magnitude...).