Your friend Jim George thinks you'd be a great addition to Ricochet, so we'd like to offer you a special deal: You can become a member for no initial charge for one month!
Ricochet is a community of like-minded people who enjoy writing about and discussing politics (usually of the center-right nature), culture, sports, history, and just about every other topic under the sun in a fully moderated environment. We’re so sure you’ll like Ricochet, we’ll let you join and get your first month for free. Kick the tires: read the always eclectic member feed, write some posts, join discussions, participate in a live chat or two, and listen to a few of our over 50 (free) podcasts on every conceivable topic, hosted by some of the biggest names on the right, for 30 days on us. We’re confident you’re gonna love it.
Wow. #7, for sure.
#3 and #4 too.
And #10. Great list. Hats off, Al Ragsdale!
I need to post this in my office.
It’s nice to have a mentor. It’s even better when that mentor is full of wisdom.
This is so perfect, and I am going to post it to all my grandsons and granddaughters.
I like #2, #5 and #8. Not so sure about #6. Any examples @seawriter ?
Thank you.
Meh.
Specifically:
IV: A grain of truth, but if you don’t do at least some planning, disaster awaits.
V: True enough, but scheduling is useful for exposing conflicts that need prioritizing.
VI: Nope. I’m calling [expletive] on this. It is crucial to not just do something when there’s nothing useful to do. At least, anywhere other than in government.
VIII: Nope. Teamwork is important, but talent is essential. Monkeys banging on typewriters and all that.
I like the list.
I’d add a few:
I take this list as a lighthearted poke at those who exalt rigid methodology over practical flexibility. My employer was once big on MBO (Management By Objective). Everyone made sure that their stated objectives for the month were things that they could complete before quitting time the day of the MBO meeting (only slight exaggeration) so that they would not have to explain why they had not met their objectives at the next meeting. Ergo, more planning, less accomplished.
Number 6 is a warning not to stand around doing nothing when you cannot do the obviously useful thing.
One example from the environment in which these rules were developed would be some contingency situation popping up during a mission. The most useful thing you could be doing is manning the console in one of the back rooms working the problem.
But there is already a team at the console so you cannot be useful there. Find something else to do. Don’t just stand there because you cannot do something useful.
Someone can argue that what you find to do when you cannot be useful is actually useful, so therefore you are being useful. But that misses the real message of the rule. Don’t stand around doing nothing – do something.
I will also note that these rules assume a requisite level of competence, talent, and training on the part of those using them. They are not aimed at monkeys – they are aimed at rocket engineers. Trust me, assuming everyone is competent, teamwork is more importance than brilliance. Brilliant prima donnas can cause a lot more grief than dullards. To quote Thomas Sowell “There is usually only a limited amount of damage that can be done by dull or stupid people. For creating a truly monumental disaster, you need people with high IQs.”
Been there, done that.
In that case maybe we should edit VI:
VI. If you can’t do something important, do something useful.
I also am not a fan of this list. Perhaps it worked and is a result of the climate from which it sprang, but in general some of these seem terrible.
How can you not plan? Doing something not useful is stupid. I agree with the edit above. Some things are indeed quite simple, but those are things we don’t spend time on.
Sounds almost like the line from The Red Green Show.
The Quote of the Day series is the easiest way to start a fun conversation on Ricochet. We have many days available on the July Signup Sheet, including this Sunday. We even include tips for finding great quotes, so choose your favorite quote and sign up today!
How do you get (and certain others) get “Don’t plan” from “The more you plan ahead, the less you actually accomplish?” Do you see the word “more” in there? It means something. If you still haven’t figured it out, click here.
As to re-writing rule 6? Like I said earlier, those for whom these rules were written can figure out the underlying meaning. Those that cannot? They probably should not be in the position of planning and conducting space operations.
I think this is akin to moving the goalposts. The post suggest one needs to absorb and implement these rules to be a “real engineer”, like you. The conditions you’ve added in these comments suggest that they only apply to a team of elite engineers who have the cavalier approach to schedules and budgets of government work.
The rules I highlighted are a recipe for disaster in the any of the typical ten- to twenty-engineer teams I deal with in manufacturing plants across the country.
If that is what you wish to believe go ahead. These are rules on how to become an elite engineer. If someone wants to be mediocre, they can go for it.
The rule about planning. It sings to me. @seawriter, my first thought when reading the complaints about IV was “it says MORE”. There is definitely a sweet spot. Less is usually better than more. But less is also almost always better than nothing.
Wow. That’s pretty snobby. I dare say that since the Apollo era NASA hasn’t distinguished itself as elite engineers so much as bureaucrats working in engineering.
There are all kinds of engineers and not all of them involve large teams controlled by government budgets and politics.
I think your mentor’s list is cute and probably fits the dynamic of the environment that you’re in. That is, NASA doesn’t let a janitor wipe a butt (on the earth) without safety plans and contingency operations. There are plenty of “elite” engineers that work in less regulated businesses where following the advice on that list would be disastrous.
NASA hasn’t been following Ragsdale’s Rules for at least 25 years. These are the rules you have to follow to put a man on the moon and return him safely to Earth. Instead NASA has been infected by the bureaucratic manager and the get-along engineer. The type of engineer you seem to be advocating. As you have noted, since they have settled for less than the best they really have not accomplished much.
I think we misunderstand each other. I am in no way advocating NASA engineering as an organization to emulate.
If I told any of my manufacturing customers (scattered among the Fortune 500), who seem to think I’m an elite engineer, that I was adopting Ragsdale’s rules, my reputation and business would burn to the ground. Only elites in government have the arrogance to operate that way.
In fact, I would suggest that Ragsdale created this list precisely because it was not followed by NASA.