0004133373@mcimail.com (Donald E. Kimberlin) (07/11/90)
Reading an article in EDN for 28 Jun 90 (p.35) today brought a
thoughtful frame of mind about how we approach utilizing
telecommunications today.
In the article cited, Richard A. Quinnel writes:
" LLAMA ALERT!
" We engineers are so good at solving problems that we
sometimes forget to ask if the problem has been posed correctly; we
just solve it. Yet questioning the rationale behind product
specifications can avoid a lot of pointless effort.
" Consider the U.S. Army's llamas. In the early 1940's, so the
story goes, the Army wanted a dependable supply of llama dung, as
required by specifications for treating the leather used in airplane
seats. Submarine attacks made shipping from South America unreliable,
so the Army attempted to establish a herd of llamas in New Jersey.
Only after the attempt failed did anyone question the specification.
Subsequent research revealed that the U.S. Army had copied a British
Army specification dating back to Great Britain's era of colonial
expansion. The original specification applied to saddle leather.
" Great Britain's pressing need for cavalry to patrol its many
colonies meant bringing together raw recruits, untrained horses and
new saddles. The leather smell made horses skittish and unmanageable.
Treating the saddle leather with llama dung imparted an odor that
calmed the horses. The treatment, therefore, became part of the
leather's specification, which remained unchanged for a century.
" So, on your next project, make sure you know the reason
behind the specs. If you hear, "We've always done it that way," watch
out for llama dung."
Reflecting on Quinnel's story brought to mind how frequently
in telecommunications we're told, "It's the way we've always done it."
No wonder so many projects carry an aura of llama dung!jgro@apldbio.com (Jeremy Grodberg) (07/18/90)
In article <9656@accuvax.nwu.edu> 0004133373@mcimail.com (Donald E. Kimberlin) writes: >X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 477, Message 10 of 10 > " LLAMA ALERT! > " We engineers are so good at solving problems that we >sometimes forget to ask if the problem has been posed correctly; we >just solve it. Yet questioning the rationale behind product >specifications can avoid a lot of pointless effort. >[ Story pointing out the specification of treating leather with llama dung > was intended to solve a problem which was no longer relevant ] > " So, on your next project, make sure you know the reason >behind the specs. If you hear, "We've always done it that way," watch >out for llama dung." Unfotunately, I have seen the reverse problem more often: specs which cannot be justified are discarded, and later the reason for the specs is discovered. A great example is when the Bell breakup allowed anyone to make phones. Companies said "What do phones have to look like this?" and created dozens of phone designs that would hang-up when you cradled them on your shoulder, or go off hook when the cat kicked them off the table. The little features of Bell telephones that were added to keep the phone from hanging up when it fell off the table (and was in use) were subtle, and no one thought they were of any importance, so the were canned. Only after several years did the new companies re-learn the lessons. I'm sure there are hundreds of other stories where people couldn't think of why a feature was needed until after it was left out of the finished product. One needs to be equally cautious of this situation. Jeremy Grodberg jgro@apldbio.com "Beware: free advice is often overpriced!"