Reply #37: Analysis of an Engineer's Analysis [View All]

[Stalwart]

Excellent. Typical of an engineer to put things together so they will work or find out why they don't and fix them. It is structured thinking applied to a problem using conceptual and physical "things" to accomplish the "actions" to produce results. The same way the Constitution or our space program were made.

The author's engineering thoughts are well structured nouns and verbs. His second paragraph is a systems analyst dream. He lays out all the nouns and the key verbs that implement the nouns' relationships to achieve the goal of emergency procedures. Then he goes on to do more of the same in a supporting structure. Get the things (nouns) and their relationships right and the actions (verbs) fall into place. This guy is good!

Some readers of like mind know exactly what he is doing as he lays out his engineering in narrative form and how it translates through stages to something (a system) that gets a job done. Others, I am sure, recognize it as great stuff with less understanding of why.

Scientists conceptualize things. Engineers design and build them so that they can be operated by ordinary people (or even idiots). Persistent, catastrophic failures where the rubber meets the road due to glaringly obvious errors in concept and/or design as well as any subverting noise is unacceptable.

The safety and security of its citizens is a core government objective. Systems that protect all of us from natural disaster should do exactly that. Conceived to protect. Engineered for success. Successful in implementation. An effective, tested disaster plan might well be a model in both concept and design for many other areas of government objectives and priorities.

It is time for geniuses with honest conceptions of reality and engineers that turn them into systems that work to take over from the people like bush and brownie.