Friday, March 30, 2012
Immoderate!
A column from Kathleen Parker irritated me!
We are, in a word, immoderate.
This was not always so. Once upon a time, moderation in all things was the maxim by which most people tried to live their lives. Today moderation is merely boring. Extreme is the virtue of the cool, as well as of a populace whose attention span compares favorably to a gnat's. Judging from the girths ambling along America's sidewalks, few appetites go untended.
Likewise in the political realm, passions roam unbridled. By saner standards, what would be readily identified as fanaticism is considered conviction, while resistance to compromise is allegiance to principle. In an environment where talk radio and cable TV set the tone of discourse, dispassion and facts give way to heat and opinion. In the policy arena, moral principle morphs into purity tests for politicians, and moderates run for the hills.
Such does not bode well for a nation in trouble. What we need are calm voices and pragmatic minds. Instead, we have fewer people self-identifying as moderate, down from 40 percent to 35 percent in the past 10 years. Yet, stop people on the street and they'll tell you they're sick of the partisanship and gridlock. They want Washington to reform itself. But do they really?
Two thoughts about this moderation in all things idea: 1) Yes, there are many areas of legislation and order where compromise and moderation is both necessary and desirable; and, 2) No, there are also many,many areas where moderation and compromise are highly prejudicial to the good order of the nation and its people.
Here are a few of these areas where there is basically only one right answer, or one correct position to take on your political side:
Morality; Law of the Land; Governance; Religion; Life or Death Matters; War; Guns; Will of the People. At the base of each of these subjects, and many of similar import, is a yes/no, or go/no-go binary answer, without the possibility of compromise or moderation of view.
It is: moral versus amoral or moral relativity; obey the law or disobey the law or work to overturn the law; hew to the form of government or try to change the form and our Constitution; belief versus non-belief in God; survive life or don't survive; war or no war; obey the will or the people or defy the will; and so on through hundreds, if not thousands, of these go/no go issues.
Thus, I contend that we are far more moderate than most nations, and yet, we do stick to our principles and beliefs when it matters. Then too, we do not fall for the Democratic trap that amounts to "be moderate, be collegial, be compromizing, and just agree with us!" Meeting them halfway isn't on, because there isn't any halfway in many cases!
We are, in a word, immoderate.
This was not always so. Once upon a time, moderation in all things was the maxim by which most people tried to live their lives. Today moderation is merely boring. Extreme is the virtue of the cool, as well as of a populace whose attention span compares favorably to a gnat's. Judging from the girths ambling along America's sidewalks, few appetites go untended.
Likewise in the political realm, passions roam unbridled. By saner standards, what would be readily identified as fanaticism is considered conviction, while resistance to compromise is allegiance to principle. In an environment where talk radio and cable TV set the tone of discourse, dispassion and facts give way to heat and opinion. In the policy arena, moral principle morphs into purity tests for politicians, and moderates run for the hills.
Such does not bode well for a nation in trouble. What we need are calm voices and pragmatic minds. Instead, we have fewer people self-identifying as moderate, down from 40 percent to 35 percent in the past 10 years. Yet, stop people on the street and they'll tell you they're sick of the partisanship and gridlock. They want Washington to reform itself. But do they really?
Two thoughts about this moderation in all things idea: 1) Yes, there are many areas of legislation and order where compromise and moderation is both necessary and desirable; and, 2) No, there are also many,many areas where moderation and compromise are highly prejudicial to the good order of the nation and its people.
Here are a few of these areas where there is basically only one right answer, or one correct position to take on your political side:
Morality; Law of the Land; Governance; Religion; Life or Death Matters; War; Guns; Will of the People. At the base of each of these subjects, and many of similar import, is a yes/no, or go/no-go binary answer, without the possibility of compromise or moderation of view.
It is: moral versus amoral or moral relativity; obey the law or disobey the law or work to overturn the law; hew to the form of government or try to change the form and our Constitution; belief versus non-belief in God; survive life or don't survive; war or no war; obey the will or the people or defy the will; and so on through hundreds, if not thousands, of these go/no go issues.
Thus, I contend that we are far more moderate than most nations, and yet, we do stick to our principles and beliefs when it matters. Then too, we do not fall for the Democratic trap that amounts to "be moderate, be collegial, be compromizing, and just agree with us!" Meeting them halfway isn't on, because there isn't any halfway in many cases!
Labels: Decision-Making
Wednesday, February 01, 2012
On Decision-Making
There is a prior step to good decision-making: Problem Analysis
In my view there are quite a number of drivers for making decisions.
Here is a partial list, in no special order:
--Rational and analytical
--Dictated by:
A person in charge, by careful thought or whim
Religion
Political ideology
Laws, such as the Constitution
Rules
Customs
Traditions
Emotions of a mob
Other
--Haphazard, as in letting things happen
--Deliberate non-decision-making
--Irrational decision-making
Astrological
Soothsayer
Mediums
Tea leaves
Other
--Probabilistic
Mean of a distribution
Median of a distribution
Throw of the dice
Toss of a coin
Rational/analytical decision-making is a preferred process since it minimizes the inclusion of extraneous or nebulous elements and constraints on the eventual solution.
A distinction should be made between decision-making and problem analysis. In fact, several things must happen before a rational decision can be made:
Problem Analysis
1) Objective and scope: Determine the objective of the decision, the scope of the problem and the universe of possible solutions, being careful to define the constraints to be imposed on the solutions. Take into account prior solutions to the same or a similar problem.
2) Problem Analysis: Analyze the problem, being certain to include all known factors affecting the objective within the scope of possible solutions. Establish the needs and requirements for the solution.
3) Possible Solutions: Identify all major practical solutions possible within the constraints.
Decision-Making
1. Perform tradeoff studies between the alternative solutions to decide which solution or solutions meet the needs.
2. Decide upon and select the most promising solutions for further analysis and tradeoff studies.
3. Decide to prototype the selected solutions for further evaluation. Halt the process if infeasible.
4. Decide and select the final solution.
Example: Perhaps a very simplified example will clarify these steps:
Problem Analysis
Objective and scope: to carry 400 passengers in comfort to any point on the globe within 10 hours.
Prior solutions: Boeing 747, 20 to 24 hours, and one stop for refueling. B-2 Bomber flying wing, which requires multiple in-air refuelings to extend its range.
Possible Solutions: The only practical solution at this time is to design a better commercial transport plane, and more efficient engines. Configuration possibilities are basically twofold: 1) a conventional aerodynamic design; and, 2) a more efficient aerodynamic design, such as a flying wing. Current jet engines cannot achieve the fuel economy needed for over Mach 1 flight for 15 thousand miles, which means a new state of the art engine development is necessary. In-air refueling is not to be considered. Consideration of the impact on ground handling must be factored into the analysis.
Passenger comfort and a pleasing experience is a heavy constraint.
Decision-Making
Decide between conventional and unconventional aerodynamic configurations by modeling and wind tunnel analysis, followed by a possible prototyping flyoff between competitive designs using available engines. Decide whether small scale models of the airframes would suffice to decide between the two configurations, or should the two airframes be built full scale.
Decide between feasible competitive engine designs through analysis of competing designs, and possibly a run-off test between prototypes. Constraints here include meeting the installation requirements of the airframes under consideration. (If no feasible engine design is forthcoming, the problem is over.)
Decide between competitive proposals from aircraft builders for the prototype developments.
Decide whether to extend the competition to include more than one airframe and engine selection, or to go ahead with detailed design, development, test and pre-production prototyping of only a single solution.
Decide the final solution, in this case, say, a four-engine 400 seat conventional configuration. This was decided basically on the needs for ground handling at terminals and the width of the wings, and (partially, shall we say) on the criteria for passenger comfort and a pleasing experience, since the wing configuration does not allow for as adequate a passenger viewing experience as does the conventional design.
There is a prior step to good decision-making: Problem Analysis
In my view there are quite a number of drivers for making decisions.
Here is a partial list, in no special order:
--Rational and analytical
--Dictated by:
A person in charge, by careful thought or whim
Religion
Political ideology
Laws, such as the Constitution
Rules
Customs
Traditions
Emotions of a mob
Other
--Haphazard, as in letting things happen
--Deliberate non-decision-making
--Irrational decision-making
Astrological
Soothsayer
Mediums
Tea leaves
Other
--Probabilistic
Mean of a distribution
Median of a distribution
Throw of the dice
Toss of a coin
Rational/analytical decision-making is a preferred process since it minimizes the inclusion of extraneous or nebulous elements and constraints on the eventual solution.
A distinction should be made between decision-making and problem analysis. In fact, several things must happen before a rational decision can be made:
Problem Analysis
1) Objective and scope: Determine the objective of the decision, the scope of the problem and the universe of possible solutions, being careful to define the constraints to be imposed on the solutions. Take into account prior solutions to the same or a similar problem.
2) Problem Analysis: Analyze the problem, being certain to include all known factors affecting the objective within the scope of possible solutions. Establish the needs and requirements for the solution.
3) Possible Solutions: Identify all major practical solutions possible within the constraints.
Decision-Making
1. Perform tradeoff studies between the alternative solutions to decide which solution or solutions meet the needs.
2. Decide upon and select the most promising solutions for further analysis and tradeoff studies.
3. Decide to prototype the selected solutions for further evaluation. Halt the process if infeasible.
4. Decide and select the final solution.
Example: Perhaps a very simplified example will clarify these steps:
Problem Analysis
Objective and scope: to carry 400 passengers in comfort to any point on the globe within 10 hours.
Prior solutions: Boeing 747, 20 to 24 hours, and one stop for refueling. B-2 Bomber flying wing, which requires multiple in-air refuelings to extend its range.
Possible Solutions: The only practical solution at this time is to design a better commercial transport plane, and more efficient engines. Configuration possibilities are basically twofold: 1) a conventional aerodynamic design; and, 2) a more efficient aerodynamic design, such as a flying wing. Current jet engines cannot achieve the fuel economy needed for over Mach 1 flight for 15 thousand miles, which means a new state of the art engine development is necessary. In-air refueling is not to be considered. Consideration of the impact on ground handling must be factored into the analysis.
Passenger comfort and a pleasing experience is a heavy constraint.
Decision-Making
Decide between conventional and unconventional aerodynamic configurations by modeling and wind tunnel analysis, followed by a possible prototyping flyoff between competitive designs using available engines. Decide whether small scale models of the airframes would suffice to decide between the two configurations, or should the two airframes be built full scale.
Decide between feasible competitive engine designs through analysis of competing designs, and possibly a run-off test between prototypes. Constraints here include meeting the installation requirements of the airframes under consideration. (If no feasible engine design is forthcoming, the problem is over.)
Decide between competitive proposals from aircraft builders for the prototype developments.
Decide whether to extend the competition to include more than one airframe and engine selection, or to go ahead with detailed design, development, test and pre-production prototyping of only a single solution.
Decide the final solution, in this case, say, a four-engine 400 seat conventional configuration. This was decided basically on the needs for ground handling at terminals and the width of the wings, and (partially, shall we say) on the criteria for passenger comfort and a pleasing experience, since the wing configuration does not allow for as adequate a passenger viewing experience as does the conventional design.
Labels: Decision-Making
