It’s almost as if there’s two types of humans. Who often find it difficult to understand the other. In the field of pros and cons here’s a sketch.
One who takes a general overview that can be called the “big picture”. They shy away from dense information. Much in favour of short précis and a well-crafted pitch. Not so much interested in how an answer was derived as what it is an how it impacts their interests.
Another who specialises and focuses on precise detail. Deeply engrained in the working of a particular issue. Open to a continuous round of investigation and discovery. Not so much interested in an outcome as the interaction of the components that produced an outcome.
With the first, they are comfortable with ambiguity. A degree of vagueness. They can short-cut to decisions to provide a sense of certainty. On the downside this can lead to turning a blind eye to difficulties and failing.
With the second, they are obsessed with the pursuit of excellence almost to the exclusion of practicality. On the upside they may anticipate problems. Providing workable solutions before they become forced.
What am I talking about? Most people don’t fit in either camp. Or we have subjects where we dig deeply and others where we skim the surface. I’ve used the analogy of a basic comb on this one. The spine of the comb is the overview. The prongs of the comb are the deeper scrutiny.
My message is simple – both are needed. That is, both are needed to understand what’s going on. Where the subject is a complex aircraft systems design both are essential.
There’s another way of saying this too. Slightly different because this way assumes a hierarchic organisational structure. For the most part, despite fads and fashions to do differently, most large organisation still have a form of hierarchical arrangement. Directorates, departments, sections, teams and alike.
One view of a complex system can be taken “top-down”. Another view is taken “bottom-up”. Phrased like this (top and bottom) it’s not easy to appreciate that both are equally important.
As an illustration, I certainly remember working with highly professional engineers with incredibly detailed knowledge of their part of an aircraft. However, they had little idea of the implications of some functions in relation to the abnormal operations of an aircraft in service.
Equally, to be fair, those meetings with capable and highly experienced managers who were inclined to bypass or belittle difficulties to ensure that a promised date was met. Or an inability to appreciate the necessity to consider the long-term consequences of a finding.
My message is simple – the two perspectives must be drawn together for success. Bringing together the points of connection between the nitty gritty detail and a wider appreciation is a hard job. Fraught with misunderstanding the people who can do this are rare and precious.
The above is a reason to be concerned when the approach to efficiency is biased towards automation. To speed up design processes to get all the ducks in a row. To more quickly pile up the paperwork, or its digital equivalent, without time to think. Without the space to use our most valuable skills – experience, creativity, imagination, discussion and mutual respect.
John Vincent 