Category: Systems

Trust in Voluntary Reporting

Hard data is immensely useful. Now there’s a surprise. That’s facts and figures. That’s accurate descriptions of occurrences. That’s measurements and readings of important factors. From this kind of data, a picture can be painted of events good and bad. However, this picture is not complete. It’s certainly not complete for any system that involves the interactions of humans and machines.

What’s often less visible is the need for what I might call – soft data. As such it’s not “soft”. I’m just using that loose term to distinguish it. Fine, you could say that social media is littered with the stuff. Vast qualities of instant judgements and colourful opinions. An array of off-the-shelf solutions to life’s ills. That’s all well and good for entertainment. It’s not so useful as a means of getting to the truth.

In civil aviation voluntary reporting systems have been around for several decades. They are not always successful, mainly because there’s a fair amount of trust required to use them when something major happens. When volunteering information there needs to be a level of assurance that the information will not be misused.

The human inclination to seek to blame is intrinsic. We wake-up in the morning, look out the window, and if it’s rainy and windy then someone is to blame. Probably a weather reporter for not warning us of a coming storm. Blame is a way of making sense of negative events without having to do lot of tedious investigation and analysis.

Don’t get me wrong. Accountability is vital. If someone does something unspeakably bad, they must be held accountable. That is a form of blame. Tracing the bad event back to the root cause. If that cause is found to be negligence or malicious intent, then blame can be assigned.

Where a good safety culture exists, as it often the case in civil aviation, then it is wrong to assume that undesirable outcomes can always be linked to a bad actor of some kind.

Human error is forever with us. Even with the absolute best of intent no one is immune from this pervasive creature. It can be illusive. There are environments where owning up to making mistakes is fine. Sadly, I’m sure it’s not uncommon to have worked in environments where such openness is punished. The difference between a good culture and a bad one.

One of my past jobs involved negotiation with a contactor. Every change that we made to a complex contact had a cost attracted to it. So, there was an understandable sensitivity to making changes. At the same time our customer for the product kept asking for changes. There’s nothing worse than being in a tense meeting with a contactor and having my boss pull the rug from under my feet. Seeking to blame a change on my error rather than a customer request. Introducing a voluntary reporting system in such an environment is pointless.

My message here is clear. Voluntary reporting in aviation is a powerful tool. Reports submitted by employees can offer insights that are not available by just looking at hard data. These reporting systems maybe required by regulation or company policy. However, without a good sound safety culture they can be all but useless. A safety culture that is defended and supported by employees and the senior management of an organisation.

Shifting Perspectives

Daily writing prompt
What’s a topic or issue about which you’ve changed your mind?
View all responses

If you write the perfect rule, you will get the desired outcome. Authoring a specification that is robust and watertight will assure success. Having the best possible plan will deliver the best possible results. All sounds reasonable – doesn’t it? It’s not surprising that someone like me, having been schooled in project management, and working in engineering, would have a rational and systematic approach to problem solving. A proven highly successful way of implementing complex technical projects and delivering successful outcomes.

As an analogy I’ll start with mathematics. Nature is a curious beast. What we lean about complex systems is that what happens is highly dependent upon a start point. The initial conditions. Graduate level mathematics about control systems with feedback show that their behaviour changes a lot with a change of initial conditions. So, it’s reasonable to extend that to a systematic approach to just about anything. It’s often true.

Fail to plan – plan to fail. That idiom is a simple few words to sum up this cause and effect. Used by famous names and often quoted. Management training books are littered with this notion.

20-years ago, my team introduced the first European Aviation Safety Plan[1]. This initiative was built around the idea that to achieve a common objective a plan is the best and quickest way to get there. A roadmap, a pathway, a strategy, call it what you will.

Start by identifying problems and then propose a fix for each one. Not all problems but the ones that fit that awkward Americanism – the low hanging fruit. Namely, the biggest problems (fruit) that can be solved with the least effort (easily picked).

Here’s where I’ve changed your mind. Maybe not changed in a dramatic sense but shifted perspective. It’s essential to have a plan, even if it’s just in my head, but it can be overstated as the most important part of a process of change.

The Plan, Do, Check, and Act (PDCA) cycle, starts with a plan. It must start that way. However, each of the four steps is equally important. Seems obvious to say. Even so, it’s often the case that a press release, or alike, will state – we have a plan, roadmap, pathway, strategy, as if that’s the job done.

Management teams will smile with a sense of achievement and show off their plans. A decade down the line that celebration might seem less momentous as the “do” part of the process turns out to be harder than anticipated.

This basic model for systematic change is a good one. Where I’ve changed my emphasis is in the distribution of effort. Don’t put all available energies into constructing the perfect plan. Yes, the initial conditions are important but they are not everything. The key part of the process is the cycle. Going around it with regularity is a way of delivering continuous improvement. Afterall, when it comes to a subject like aviation safety, that’s what’s needed.

[1] 2005 – DECISION OF THE MANAGEMENT BOARD ADOPTING THE 2006 WORK PROGRAMME OF THE EUROPEAN AVIATION SAFETY AGENCY

National Digital ID: Balancing Security and Liberty

We are in an age where identity is as important as it has ever been. Those line of demarcation that put us in one camp or another. It’s not a simple subject give the myriads of different combinations and permutations of distinct categories that can describe a person.

Without a doubt, I’m English, British, and European. A West Countryman, a husband, a graduate, a homeowner, a taxpayer, a liberal, an engineer and a gardener to name a few.

So, what of the current debate about the merit of identity cards or their digital equivalent. I remember, more than 15 years ago, the debate that surrounded this subject. Saying, as a Liberal Democrat I was against the introduction of ID cards as a matter of principle. A matter of principle seems like it should be an immovable statement. However, that which was a matter of principle in the context of the times does warrant revisiting.

It’s a transformation that was allowed to sweep much before it. From a paper-based analogue world full of mechanical processes to a ubiquitous high-speed digital one that has made life unrecognisable from the 1980s/90s. Digitisation is as much a social change as it is a bureaucratic change.

Past agreements range from the assertion that it will be impossible to control illegal migration without ID cards to the fear of big brother tracking every stage of our lives from cradle to grave. What’s moved on is the context within which arguments for and against are conducted.

A starting position is that each of us has multiple identities. It’s undeniable that these exist and they impact our daily lives. Some of these identities entitle us to specific privileges. This means permitting our access and restricting or stopping others. This can be as simple as a workplace security badge that allows access to a building.

A State-run identity recording system is not a universal cure all. Also, a State-run ID card and national database system has the potential to fundamentally change the relationship between a Citizen and the State. I could say that there’s nowhere to hide. This is not a subject to go into with one’s eyes closed. The operational and associated implementation costs would be significant. Not to mention ongoing maintenance. These must be weighed against the benefits that might be accrued. I hope this becomes a rational discussion where costs and benefits are studied, published, and debated.

Can a national digital ID system prevent terrorist attacks, illegal immigration, identity fraud, and human trafficking? I don’t know. I do know that it will not be perfect.

On the political side, will people feel more secure and that State benefits or services are more fairly distributed as a result? That’s a big question.

To work effectively such a system will need to be required to by law. How much will that nibble away at the intrinsic perception of British liberty that we continue to hold? Will there be a backlash against a State that seeks to acquire more leavers of control?

My view is that the mandating of a national digital ID system needs to be balanced with a better clarification of the rights of citizenship in Britan. Without a written constitution there remains the vulnerability that a government of an extreme political type could misuse this innovation.

Cooling Heated Debates

How do we cool the temperature of debate? Recent events show that there are people who would rather heat it up. Without historic analogies or dire polemics, it’s clear that heating up conflicts inevitable harms people and prolongs, and often intensifies, those conflicts.

I’d like to think that enjoying vigorous debate can be achieved but with the general ethical idea of “do no harm” in mind. Sure, there are a lot of disagreements and disagreeable ideas. None of that is new to the human condition.

Most of us, bar a few professors, have forgotten what people in medieval England were arguing about in the crowded public houses of that period. I’ll bet those arguments were just as intense as anything we can muster. My guess is that the subject would be how the people in the next town were not to be trusted. They will ripe you off given half a chance.

Religion gets drawn into the debates of our times. That’s even if, like me, most people are agnostic and don’t follow a particular creed. Even from that personal point of view we live in a society that has been touched by the broader ethics of a religious heritage.

With my Sunday school hat on here’s ways that our leaders might try to cool the ferment.

One move is to resist the temptation to be dogmatic. It’s absolutism that is aimed at shutting down debate that causes so much rancour. It’s a bad way of winning over others. Doesn’t matter who is being dictatorial, right or left, crushing debate is boring and counterproductive in the long term. Have an ideology but don’t force it down the throat of others.

Have in mind, throw the first stone but only if you have never screwed up or never done something stupid. Most of us can’t live by this dictum. It’s there in my Sunday school wisdom as a prompt. Have in the back of your mind the thought that hypocrisy is not a good look.

Resist relativism. It’s childish. What I means is to say that slagging off Mr X is fine, it’s OK, because they slagged off my people. This ding-dong is a school playground habit that lasts a lifetime. It’s a route to escalation and one that leads to injury or suffering.

This one probably was in the medieval world. When in a hole, try to stop digging. Yes, it takes a certain amount of self-awareness to see the metaphorical hole. Not everyone can master that awareness. If an argument is going nowhere, to the extent that the heat in the room is rising, leave, or try a different approach.

There are ways to stay our bad spirits. To slay those demons. Not so easy to use them in the social media environment were all the above is encouraged. Is social media unethical? Innately evil? No, not really, in my opinion. Behind each ill-considered post is a person. Well, not in every case but even bots are created by someone.

Just as we needed to learn to live with the printing press, so we need to learn to live with digital technology. What we haven’t leaned yet is how to use it promote well-being and stop it being a place for fear mongering and endless expletives.

Future of Engineering

I do find it astonishing that back in the early 1990s I was still producing handwritten material that then got typed up by a typist. Then, were edits and errors needed correcting, “cut and paste” really meant cutting and pasting paper. Applying Tipp-Ex correction fluid was normal. Wonder who uses that now? It’s still available.

Engineering practice adopted word processing rapidly from that time on-ward. It’s now almost inconceivable that anyone would get someone else to type up their work. Early lap-top computers that weighted heavily on the shoulders, were carried to meetings as necessity but not love. The joys of trying to find a printer that would work was a daily mission.

In about 30-years we’ve gone from that primitive introduction to the digital realm to machines that want to write papers and reports for us. From brick like “portable” computers that required cables and batteries that drained in minutes to the complete world being available on-line anywhere on the globe.

The mechanisms by which engineering design and development were done have advanced in such a way as to make the past seem rather curious. I’m not saying that we’ve become ever cleverer and more inventive with the passage of time, just that the speed of trail and error has increased dramatically.

Past mechanisms did make the ability to change a path, once set on that path, difficult. I remember the reluctance to introduce changes unless an overwhelming case could be made. In this new situation, making changes still has a cost associated with it, but the resistance to change isn’t so much driven by the processes used.

What’s happing, like it or not, is that artificial intelligence’s transformative impact is touching, or will be touching, everything we do. That includes engineering design and development.

I’d say it’s a good time to be an innovator. In theory, it should be possible to explore many more possibilities that could be explored in the past. That is for the same level of cost in time and money. There’s not a single part of engineering practice that will not be impacted. Classrooms, meeting rooms and workplaces where the business of communicating technical ideas and testing them goes on, will be fertile ground for the application of AI.

I don’t think we understand just how transformative the impact will be on engineering. It’s not all upside either. Technology’s promises are great. There are perils too.

AI can only know what it’s been trained on. That maybe extremely extensive. However, innovation comes from creativity and inventiveness where the past may only be a partial guide. Also, there’s the danger of overreliance on these almost magical tools too. New skills must develop to be critical and knowledge of the deficiencies of complex algorithms.

All of this is a bit different from paper, correction fluid, scissors and tape. What an exciting time to be a young engineer.

Regulatory Insights

I can’t remember if my teacher was talking about maths or physics. His scholarly advice has stuck with me. When things get complex, they can seem overwhelming. Problems seem insolvable. So, it’s good to take a deep breath, step back and see if it’s possible to reduce the problem to its most basic elements. Do what could be called helicopter behaviour. Try to look at the problem top-down, in its simplest form. Break it into parts to see if each part is more easily comprehended.

Today’s international aviation regulatory structure, for design and production, follows the arrow of time. From birth to death. Every commercial aircraft that there ever was started as a set of ideas, progressed to a prototype and, if successful, entered service to have a life in the air.

This elementary aircraft life cycle is embedded in standards as well as aviation rules. Documents like, ARP4754(), Aerospace Recommended Practice (ARP) Guidelines for Development of Civil Aircraft and Systems are constructed in this manner. There are as many graphs and curves that represent the aircraft life cycle as there are views on the subject, but they all have common themes.

That said, the end-of-life scenarios for aircraft of all kinds is often haphazard. Those like the Douglas DC-3 go on almost without end. Fascinatingly, this week, I read of an Airbus A321neo being scrapped after only 6-years of operations. Parts being more valuable than the aircraft.

Generally, flight-time lives in operational service are getting shorter. The pace of technology is such that advances offer commercial and environmental advantages that cannot be resisted. Operating conditions change, business models change and innovation speeds forward.

My earlier proposition was that our traditional aviation regulatory structure is out of date. Well, the detail is ever evolving – it’s true. Some of the fundamentals remain. The arrow of time, however fast the wheels spin, mixing my metaphors, remains an immobile reality.

In airworthiness terms an aircraft life cycle is divided into two halves. Initial airworthiness and continuing airworthiness. This provides for a gate keeper. A design does not advance into operational service, along the aircraft life cycle, until specified standards have been demonstrated as met. An authority has deemed that acceptable standards are met.

I’m arguing, this part of the aviation regulatory structure is far from out of date. However much there’s talk of so called “self-regulation” by industry it has not come into being for commercial aviation. I think there’s good reason for retaining the role that a capable independent authority plays in the system. A gate keeper is there to ensure that the public interest is served. That means safety, security and environmental considerations are given appropriate priority.

To fulfil these basic objectives there’s a need for oversight. That is the transparency needed to ensure confidence is maintained not just for a day but for the whole aircraft life cycle. And so, the case for both design and production approvals remain solid. The devil being in the detail.

Aviation Regulations Outdated?

Machines, like aircraft started life in craft workshops. Fabric and wood put together by skilful artisans. Experimentation being a key part of early aviation. It’s easy to see that development by touring a museum that I’d recommend a visit. At Patchway in Bristol there’s a corner of what was once a huge factory. In fact, somewhere where I worked in the early 1980s. Aerospace Bristol[1] is a story of heritage. A testament to the thousands who have worked there over decades.

Fabric and wood played part in the early days. The factory at Filton in Bristol started life making trams. An integral part of turn of the century city life. Carriage work brought together skilled workers in wood, metal and fabrics. It was soon recognised that these were just the skills needed for the new and emerging aircraft industry. The Bristol Aeroplane Company (BAC) was born.

It’s war that industrialised aviation. Demonstration of the value of air power led to ever more technical developments. Lots of the lessons of Henry Ford were applied to aircraft production. Factories grew in importance, employing a large workforce.

My time at the Filton site was in a building next to a hanger where the Bristol Bulldog[2] was originally produced. This was a single engine fighter, designed in the 1920s, in-service with the Royal Air Force (RAF).

Right from the start orderly processes and regulatory oversight formed part of aircraft design and production. The management of production quality started as a highly prescriptive process. As aviation grew into a global industry, the risks associated with poor design or faulty production became all too apparent.

In the civil industry, regulatory systems developed to address the control of design and production as two different worlds. Airworthiness, or fitness to fly, depended on having a good design that was produced in a consistent and reliable manner. So, now we have a regulatory framework with two pivotal concepts: DOA (Design Organisation Approval) and POA (Production Organisation Approval). It took about a century to get here. Now, these concepts are codified within EASA Part 21, FAA regulations, and other national aviation authorities’ frameworks.

Here’s my more controversial point. Is this internationally accepted regulatory model, that has evolved, conditioned by circumstances, the right one for the future? Are the airworthiness concepts of DOA and POA out of date?

This is a question that nobody wants to hear. Evolution has proved to be a successful strategy. At least, to date. What I’m wondering is, now the world of traditional factories and large administrative workforces is passing, how will regulation adjust to meet future needs?

Maybe I’ll explore that subject next.

[1] https://aerospacebristol.org/

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol_Bulldog

Why ‘Artificial’ in AI May Be Misleading: A Deeper Look

On reflection it seems strange to me that the biggest commercial push in technology should be called Artificial Intelligence (AI). Universally, this term has seeped into the daily media as being the only form of shorthand for the coming transformation in our lives.

Generally, the word “artificial” isn’t associated with desirable qualities. If I say that it’s opposite is “natural” then there is a wide gulf between the two. It couldn’t be clearer. Place a plastic garden chair next to an antique wooden chair – case proven.

Imagine a marketing campaign for artificial cosmetics as opposed to natural cosmetics. Which one do you think would be the more successful? It’s honest to say that a product is artificial given that it’s manufactured but it’s much more appealing to talk about its natural roots.

A desire to elevate natural content has a historical context. It’s the industrial revolution that provided society with a rich wealth of choice. Trouble is that a legacy image of dark satanic mills[1] and grim-faces of exploited workers is written deep into our culture. The natural world was assaulted and abused by the unstoppable steam roller of the industrial revolution.

It’s reasonable to refer to a complex digital system as an artifact. Not in the way of an archaeological discovery. More like a popular game, chess, checkers or go, in that it’s extant and associated with a set of practices and rules.

Today, AI doesn’t exist in nature. It may be inspired by nature, in terms of analogies with the workings of our brains. Neural networks and memory. Interconnections of circuits and wires and their arrangements are a human creation.

Having written the above, it does make me think; what will happen in 1000 years? A long time for our social structures and organisation but no time at all for any inhabitants of the Earth. Will someone be writing academic tones on the natural history of computers? Humans will be looking at them, and their evolution wondering how and why they got to do what they do. Much as we might now study ravens, rats and rabbits.

Surely AI will evolve. A natural process. Current systems will inevitably have deficiencies and flaws that get corrected in future generations. Experimentation is a human domain. Give it several decades and machines will be doing it for themselves.

The word “artificial” has a big downside. Although I’m having a lot of difficulty in thinking of a better general word. In my long-term scenario, what’s coming is a new branch of evolution. We know, the complexity of human behaviour is largely conditioned by our environment. We adapt. What AI may become, continuity dependent, will likely follow a similar path.

Whenever I visit the Natural History Museum[2] in London I like to look in on our ancestors. Today, our species, Homo sapiens, is the only human living. We once lived amongst our other human ancestors. Homo is the Latin word for “human” and sapiens is derived from a Latin word meaning “wise”.

There’s a story for you. Will AI eventually become Machina sapiens?

[1] “Dark Satanic Mills” is a phrase from William Blake’s poem.

[2] https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/the-origin-of-our-species.html

Guilt: Double-Edged

Guilty as charged. At the end of a crime drama that’s what I want to hear. There’s been a resolution. Justice has been done. The baddies have been locked up and the aggrieved are vindicated. Oh, for the simplicity of the simple story. I guess that’s why they are liked so much.

What I want to spin a couple of lines about here is that whole subject of guilt. In reality, that multi-layered feeling is more complex than the two sides of the coin of my crime drama example. A world of purely nothing but good and bad does not exist.

There cannot be a single modern human who has never experienced a form of guilt. Even those who are on the edge of sanity or living as a total hermit will at one moment or another experience remorse, regret, or shame. A lingering uneasiness about what has happened, what’s happening or what might happen.

It’s built into our brains in a fundamental way. Because we can reflect on thoughts and events and learn from them, so we can analysis, even at a superficial level, poor decisions, failures, mistakes or tragedies.

Then comes the internalising thought that – I should do better or have done better. Surely, I should have seen that coming. How did that happen to me? Why me? What did I do? In the answer to those questions a feeling responsible permeates. For past events this can be compounded by knowledge that comes from hindsight.

These emotions can be entirely illogical. For example, feeling guilty about a random event that I have absolutely no responsibility for. An occurrence where, whatever I did, it would still have happened in one shape or form.

On the positive side, a feeling of responsible born of guilt can be a powerful motivator. Moments that tip people from a bad course of action to a good one. A true moment of learning.

On the negative side, guilty feelings can be destructive. They create resentment and even suffering. Especially when associated with any kind of injustice, intolerance or manipulation.

That gets to the point that I had in mind. It’s when people use of guilt as part of the general management toolbox. I’ve experienced that one often enough at work and elsewhere. Putting in those extra unpaid hours because if I didn’t the outcome will reflect badly on me. Doing that job, that I didn’t want to do, because someone was insistent that my saying “no” would result in failure. Not competing would let the side down.

My point. Don’t do it. For anyone who has authority over another, moral or actual, this is a foolish way to get things done. It can work in the short term. The problem is that such emotional blackmail has a lingering tail. That tail can kick-back and so it should.

What’s in a box?

I didn’t have a jack-in-the-box as a toy. Springing into life at the flick of a catch. For the larger part frightening the living daylights out of a young child. Or is it play, and thus basic training that surprising events can be scary and fun? Early days of leaning to handle risks.

In this case my boxes are square. Although they don’t need to be square. They are square or rectangular on a ballot paper (usually). These boxes are a boundary within which a mark is put to say “yes” this applies or “no” this is does not apply. Naturally, that can be the other way around too. For that matter they can indicate all sorts of conditions or views.

Here’s my beef. Back in March, this year, me and the Sun developed our relationship. There’s the giveaway – year. My number of years on Earth clocked up to sixty-five. At the time, I didn’t think of this as any more significant than past birthdays as a man of mature years. Then I got to completing numerous questionaries. Yes, I have moved the subject to more stuff to do with data and its use. Collecting data has never been so popular.

Never in the whole of human history have we, you and me, been faced with so many questionnaires. Almost every time I buy a coffee, and use a card of App to collect points, next day my in-box has an e-mail with a survey. Most of these I just ignore. Now and then, I fill one in with the ridiculous idea that the insignificant draw prize they offer could come my way.

Please offer your feedback in this short survey. The number of minutes they say that are needed are never right. Then they, the collectors of my data, get greedy. Asking for “as much detail as possible”. At this point I want to say – get real. What’s even worse is clicking on the “Next” button and then an error message comes up saying “This is required”. What audacity. Checky. Pushing my good will to its limits. If there were questionnaires about questionnaires, when it asked: “please tell us how your experience was on this occasion” they would get more than 100 creative words.

All this said, my real beef is to do with the collection of personal data. There’s no obligation to provide such data, when it comes to marketing surveys. This is when the incentivising possibility of a prize comes in. Afterall this data is valuable to the collectors with little incentive for a respondent to offer it. Surveys with prizes must have published terms and conditions. I wonder if anyone ever reads these legal niceties.

To the point. One question that often gets asked is – tick the box appropriate to my age. What I’ve noticed is that several of these unsolicited surveys have a box marked sixty-five and over. It’s like a whole section of the population is piled into one big bucket. Like we all fall off the end of the bell curve. Over 11 million people in England and Wales are like one.

I’m part of a growing cohort. That maybe good or bad but it is the case. It’s the case too that my cohort spends. Again, for good or bad, we are the beneficiaries of some good fortune. However, marketing surveys continue to sit in the stone age. At both ends of the demographic bell curve, toddlers and more mature folk, we are viewed as the same, one big bucket. I imagine data collectors and the designers of surveys have wrestled with this one. Whatever, the results don’t sit well with me.