On 10.01.22 16:23, Lux, Jim wrote:
And I suppose this is why it's worth talking to the mfr than looking
through the catalogs. There might well be some key requirement that if
relaxed slightly would work out quite well in terms of availability.
We run into this all the time in the space business - someone does a
structured requirements flowdown, allocating design margin to subunits,
and winds up with a performance spec that is difficult to meet, and
nobody wants to go back up the flowdown chain and ask if the requirement
can be changed. Indeed, the cost of doing the waiver might be more than
just buying the unnecessarily expensive part.
This phenomenon is not unique to the space business, but probably most
pronounced there due to the exorbitant cost (if at all possible) of
replacing one part in service that's failing.
What comes on top in many other business segments, is that several steps
down the ladder, people quite often don't have sufficient knowledge of
the intended system and its performance metrics, and as such are not in
the position to question individual requirements they're asked to fulfil.
On the other hand, I also got to know people doing space projects that
were making it clear that requirements were something of a moving
target, explicitly showed how and where they derived from and how they
impacted the end result, and actively encouraged
a) questioning them,
b) pointing out which ones are difficult to obtain, and
c) proposing different ways to achieve the intended result.
Of course that takes a bit more time and involvement upfront. But I seem
to recall that those projects had an above average success rate and
below average final cost. Probably less management and more engineering
at work ;-)
Best regards,
Florian
_______________________________________________
time-nuts mailing list -- [email protected] -- To unsubscribe send an
email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe, go to and follow the instructions there.
