Re: Engineering Newsletter

[KellySt@aol.com]

> [...]
> > 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",
> not the 
> "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...).

In an international program there is also the bit that everyone wants a peice
of the project.  With it broken down into so many paices, no one can keep
track of whats going on.  Hence the coordination effort.

Some organizations do keep that up even at the price of there survival.
 Especially government programs.  To cut out the wasted overhead would
require massive layoffs and political repercusions.  Obviously if the
organization is doing something critical its usually kept minimally gummed
up.  But given that this project can't in anyway be considered critical, it
would be unlikely to get clear of that.

Kelly