hl.rogers@ofc.Columbia.NCR.COM (hl.rogers) (11/19/89)
I have been silently reading about the group creation controversy
until I am now very confused about what problems are to be solved.
When such confusion occurs in a scientific/engineering environment
we usually remember, "Let's get back to the basics." That way, we
accomplish the following things in the sequential order indicated:
1. review and understand the original problems in the system;
2. determine the success or failure of the current solution (the
guidelines) by examing the new problems created and the old
problems not solved;
3. extrapolate new problems that may logically occur as the
system changes (brainstorm);
4. determine changes needed in the solution;
5. implement the changes;
6. measure the results to determine success/failure.
I have seen a lot of steps 2, 3, and 4 in the controversy, but have
not seen a clear statement of step 1 (if there was such an article,
I missed it (sorry)). This may be heresy, but we may not even need
guidelines if a review of the original problems showed none! I know
that is not the case; I am just making a point.
Would it be possible to order the discussion in the manner I have
suggested? If so, will you start the discussion Greg, with a clear
statement of the original problems that the guidelines tried to
solve? The net can respond with discussion until we agree on the
list of problems, then we can go to step 2, etc.
This method will result in a lengthy debate, but it should provide
an acceptable result to the majority.
Greg?
--
HL Rogers (hl.rogers@ncrcae.Columbia.NCR.COM)
Me? Speak for my company?? HA!