Re:Air Force Designed, Built, and Flew a Brand-New Fighter J...
by dylan604 on Wednesday September 16, 2020 @12:33PM
(#24494290)
When you don't design by committee, you can do things in a much quicker fashion. However, once people find out about it, they are going to start requesting a lot of changes because it's not the design they wanted.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Air Force Designed, Built, and Flew a Brand-New Fighter J...
by coredog64 on Wednesday September 16, 2020 @02:08PM
(#24495441)
The initial F-16 project faced that issue and the Fighter Mafia was pretty successful in preventing scope/mission creep.
Re:Air Force Designed, Built, and Flew a Brand-New Fighter J...
by fred_is_fred on Wednesday September 16, 2020 @01:17PM
(#24494809)
Also true for all software projects.
Re:Air Force Designed, Built, and Flew a Brand-New Fighter J...
by dylan604 on Wednesday September 16, 2020 @01:19PM
(#24494843)
That's exactly why I worded it without referencing airplanes. It's kind of a universal statement about committees.
Re:Air Force Designed, Built, and Flew a Brand-New Fighter J...
by sosborn on Wednesday September 16, 2020 @01:41PM
(#24495101)
My theory: In any organization there is a magic number of committee members, that once achieved, assures that the project will fail.
Re:Air Force Designed, Built, and Flew a Brand-New Fighter J...
by Yoofie on Wednesday September 16, 2020 @02:09PM
(#24495467)
I was just thinking about this the other day when reading the comments on small nuclear reactors and how many organizations, governments and countries can't accomplish anything of significance in a timely, costly or efficient manner.
I was thinking it should be written like a law:
The success of a project or goal is inversely proportional to the number stakeholders, investors and/or general labour involved in the project/business/goal.
This idea is closely related to the 80/20 rule, the cost/performance/quality decision triangle, etc.