Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Systems Thinking and Quality

ufried.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 33 posts

Re: Systems Thinking and Quality

#11

Post by 0x445442 »

crimsonalucard wrote: post #6

Is systems thinking the same epistemological BS that's heaped onto the industry like design patterns and all these acronyms I hear being thrown everywhere? Is there formal axiomatic basis for any of this stuff or is it just mumbo jumbo. This is the definition of quality: >The definition of quality has to do with meeting or exceeding the expectations of the customer or the consumer. Therefore, if their expectations ar…

Yeah I’m with most of what you’re saying. The car example was particularly painful. A car is put together on an assembly line comprised of parts that have have no knowledge at all of the other parts of the system. And the manufacturer of any those parts cares not one wit about the manufacturer of another. How is this possible? By taking painstaking care in the design of all the interfaces within the system. This is where software continues to fall woefully short.

Re: Systems Thinking and Quality

#12

Post by geomark »

crimsonalucard wrote: post #6

Is systems thinking the same epistemological BS that's heaped onto the industry like design patterns and all these acronyms I hear being thrown everywhere? Is there formal axiomatic basis for any of this stuff or is it just mumbo jumbo. This is the definition of quality: >The definition of quality has to do with meeting or exceeding the expectations of the customer or the consumer. Therefore, if their expectations ar…

We once had a contest at my old company. You would win a valuable prize for giving the best answer to "Define what quality means to you.". Winner by popular vote (not management's vote) was "Quality means doing such a great job that nobody will ever again ask you to define what quality means."

Re: Systems Thinking and Quality

#13

Post by omazurov »

> He says, that you should imagine having all cars available in a room and then ask a group of experts to identify the best engine, the best battery, the best transmission, and so on. Afterwards, you take all the parts identified and put them together. While we would expect to get the best car possible (we only use the best parts available), we do not even get an automobile because the parts do not fit.

> This leads Ackoff to the conclusion:

> | The performance of a system depends on how the parts fit, not how they act taken separately.

Isn't it how we hire talent nowadays?

Re: Systems Thinking and Quality

#14

Post by Fellshard »

crimsonalucard wrote: post #6

Is systems thinking the same epistemological BS that's heaped onto the industry like design patterns and all these acronyms I hear being thrown everywhere? Is there formal axiomatic basis for any of this stuff or is it just mumbo jumbo. This is the definition of quality: >The definition of quality has to do with meeting or exceeding the expectations of the customer or the consumer. Therefore, if their expectations ar…

There is a more formal description of systems thinking (see 'Thinking in Systems', Donella H. Meadows, for examples) that describe systems as components driving feedback loops and how they generate equilibrium or degenerate states, and where the best leverage is to alter the states of those systems. But I have a feeling it's yet another topic that's been diluted by consult-speak.

Re: Systems Thinking and Quality

#15

Post by crimsonalucard »

Fellshard wrote: post #14
crimsonalucard wrote: post #6

Is systems thinking the same epistemological BS that's heaped onto the industry like design patterns and all these acronyms I hear being thrown everywhere? Is there formal axiomatic basis for any of this stuff or is it just mumbo jumbo. This is the definition of quality: >The definition of quality has to do with meeting or exceeding the expectations of the customer or the consumer. Therefore, if their expectations ar…

There is a more formal description of systems thinking (see 'Thinking in Systems', Donella H. Meadows, for examples) that describe systems as components driving feedback loops and how they generate equilibrium or degenerate states, and where the best leverage is to alter the states of those systems. But I have a feeling it's yet another topic that's been diluted by consult-speak.

Yes signals and systems is a theoretical thing which is not what the person is describing here. ME and EE's learn it, but it's largely absent from CS.

Type theory or Category theory is probably closer to a formal description of the "intuition" behind the article.

Re: Systems Thinking and Quality

#16

Post by crimsonalucard »

qznc wrote: post #9
crimsonalucard wrote: post #6

Is systems thinking the same epistemological BS that's heaped onto the industry like design patterns and all these acronyms I hear being thrown everywhere? Is there formal axiomatic basis for any of this stuff or is it just mumbo jumbo. This is the definition of quality: >The definition of quality has to do with meeting or exceeding the expectations of the customer or the consumer. Therefore, if their expectations ar…

Systems Thinking is essentially a buzzword for consulting to managers and politicians. It is not for engineers. Well, maybe when engineers try to make a point to managers or politicians.

I figured. Though the fact that it was posted here I thought it was actually something some engineers were also interested in.

Re: Systems Thinking and Quality

#17

Post by kesor »

crimsonalucard wrote: post #15
Fellshard wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a more formal description of systems thinking (see 'Thinking in Systems', Donella H. Meadows, for examples) that describe systems as components driving feedback loops and how they generate equilibrium or degenerate states, and where the best leverage is to alter the states of those systems. But I have a feeling it's yet another topic that's been diluted by consult-speak.

Yes signals and systems is a theoretical thing which is not what the person is describing here. ME and EE's learn it, but it's largely absent from CS. Type theory or Category theory is probably closer to a formal description of the "intuition" behind the article.

Then there is this field called ... Cybernetics ... which is actually a field that studies systems! gasp

Re: Systems Thinking and Quality

#18

Post by crimsonalucard »

kesor wrote: post #17
crimsonalucard wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes signals and systems is a theoretical thing which is not what the person is describing here. ME and EE's learn it, but it's largely absent from CS. Type theory or Category theory is probably closer to a formal description of the "intuition" behind the article.

Then there is this field called ... Cybernetics ... which is actually a field that studies systems! gasp

gasp! another word for control theory! gasp!

Re: Systems Thinking and Quality

#20

Post by asdff »

omazurov wrote: post #13

> He says, that you should imagine having all cars available in a room and then ask a group of experts to identify the best engine, the best battery, the best transmission, and so on. Afterwards, you take all the parts identified and put them together. While we would expect to get the best car possible (we only use the best parts available), we do not even get an automobile because the parts do not fit. > This leads…

Not at the entry level. A grad with a 3.5 GPA and one with a 4.0 GPA are applying to the same job, guess who gets hired every single time. Not always the best fitting part!
Post reply on HN