Re: talking good

[Ginger Booth]

Glen,
    Ah, yes, you're right of course. If they know systems
engineering (or in my experience, just about any kind of
design engineering) it's a piece of cake. Including in Japanese
on a napkin. ;) They grok what it takes to make a successful
recipe. Scientists are harder. They often lack the background
in teamwork. Marketers should go to artists, not programmers. ;)
("The customer feels at home, like they're in slippers" as a spec
should make a sensible programmer run away.)

    But they still have to be -willing- to keep talking.

"glen e. p. ropella" wrote:

> At 02:43 PM 1/19/00 -0500, you wrote:
> >     I dunno what the most basic feasible shared language is.
>
> You're right, of course.  I tried to say that when I said
> that "What it takes is a well-defined and complete method
> for extracting well-formed requirements from them" whatever
> that method may be.  Having a common language is best.
>
> However, I don't actually *teach* these people the common
> language of systems engineering.  That can't be done in
> less than a year, I suspect.  The point is that "systems
> engineering" is semantically correct.  Anyone who has
> successfully engineered a few systems... i.e. designed
> things that solve a problems ... is conversant in
> systems engineering.  They know what it takes to go from
> scratch to a finished product when there's no textbook
> algorithm that a technician could apply.
>
> So, *if* they are that type of person, I can hammer out
> some requirements within 2 days time.  If, however, I
> have to *teach* them anything, it takes longer.
>
> As to a basic shared language, I have no clue what that
> might be either.  All I know is that I have remarkable
> success in getting a well-formed model from people in
> different domains as long as they have experience in
> designing purposeful systems.  This means that I pretty
> much fail with marketers, advertisers, spin doctors,
> and even facilitators.  I suspect that it's because their
> foci are outward looking, where a system or ontology already
> exists and what they need to do is *place* the system or
> configure the system, rather than design it.
>
> This could have something to do with the difference between
> usage and creation.  I have more fun creating something than
> I do using it.
>
> glen
>
> --
> glen e. p. ropella =><= Feeding the hamster wheel.  Hail Eris!
> Home: http://www.swarm.com/gepr                (505) 424-0448
> Work: http://www.swarm.com                      (505) 995-0818
>
>                   ==================================
>    Swarm-Modelling is for discussion of Simulation and Modelling techniques
>    esp. using Swarm.  For list administration needs (esp. [un]subscribing),
>    please send a message to <address@hidden> with "help" in the
>    body of the message.
>                   ==================================



                  ==================================
   Swarm-Modelling is for discussion of Simulation and Modelling techniques
   esp. using Swarm.  For list administration needs (esp. [un]subscribing),
   please send a message to <address@hidden> with "help" in the
   body of the message.
                  ==================================