Comments on: Simple but not simpler http://www.sitsite.com/blog/2008/09/simple-but-not-simpler/ Wed, 08 Sep 2010 16:55:57 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Isreal Loeckle http://www.sitsite.com/blog/2008/09/simple-but-not-simpler/#comment-631 Isreal Loeckle Tue, 22 Dec 2009 21:16:55 +0000 http://www.sitsite.com/blog/?p=79#comment-631 Hello, just wanted you to know I have added your site to my Google bookmarks because of your great blog layout. But in earnest, I think your site has one of the simplest theme I've came across. It really helps make reading your blog a lot easier. Hello, just wanted you to know I have added your site to my Google bookmarks because of your great blog layout. But in earnest, I think your site has one of the simplest theme I’ve came across. It really helps make reading your blog a lot easier.

]]> By: Dov Tibi http://www.sitsite.com/blog/2008/09/simple-but-not-simpler/#comment-162 Dov Tibi Tue, 07 Oct 2008 17:04:33 +0000 http://www.sitsite.com/blog/?p=79#comment-162 Well, this is a good question. Relating on my experience, too often, the provider of the RFP (Request for Proposal) defines not only the fundamental requirements from the system but also derived requirements that are hidden outcomes from the conceptual solution he has already in mind. Applying SIT methodology we begin by building a so called logical map that includes all the fundamental requirements (connected by AND gate) , from each requirement you may get more than one derived requirement ( OR gate) which will lead to performing the needed function. Sometimes by presenting this outcome to the RFP owner he may update the RFP and this will give you some degree of freedom to come up with a more creative solution. I will sum it up with an hypothetical example: An RFP for developing a personal missile includes a requirement that the missile weight will not be more than 12 Kg ,this requirement is based on the RFP owner understanding that the soldier should not carry more than 12 Kg . The hidden assumption of the customer is that the missile will be a "one piece 12 Kg max" missile, but if you choose a concept of a "two pieces missile" (SIT division tool) that can be carried by two soldiers separately than the 12 Kg missile weight limit is not relevant anymore. Dov Well, this is a good question. Relating on my experience, too often, the provider of the RFP (Request for Proposal) defines not only the fundamental requirements from the system but also derived requirements that are hidden outcomes from the conceptual solution he has already in mind. Applying SIT methodology we begin by building a so called logical map that includes all the fundamental requirements (connected by AND gate) , from each requirement you may get more than one derived requirement ( OR gate) which will lead to performing the needed function. Sometimes by presenting this outcome to the RFP owner he may update the RFP and this will give you some degree of freedom to come up with a more creative solution. I will sum it up with an hypothetical example: An RFP for developing a personal missile includes a requirement that the missile weight will not be more than 12 Kg ,this requirement is based on the RFP owner understanding that the soldier should not carry more than 12 Kg . The hidden assumption of the customer is that the missile will be a “one piece 12 Kg max” missile, but if you choose a concept of a “two pieces missile” (SIT division tool) that can be carried by two soldiers separately than the 12 Kg missile weight limit is not relevant anymore.
Dov

]]> By: Fabian Szulanski http://www.sitsite.com/blog/2008/09/simple-but-not-simpler/#comment-160 Fabian Szulanski Mon, 06 Oct 2008 17:12:30 +0000 http://www.sitsite.com/blog/?p=79#comment-160 I've got a question: How is SIT usually applied for designing alternatives/solutions after a Request for Proposals is issued. In other words, how are customer centered and product centered design processes combined? I’ve got a question: How is SIT usually applied for designing alternatives/solutions after a Request for Proposals is issued. In other words, how are customer centered and product centered design processes combined?

]]> By: Dov Tibi http://www.sitsite.com/blog/2008/09/simple-but-not-simpler/#comment-159 Dov Tibi Fri, 03 Oct 2008 14:21:10 +0000 http://www.sitsite.com/blog/?p=79#comment-159 Amnon hi The second part of the story (that was not posted in the blog) touches exactlly the point you mentioned and was disscussed in the group. Too creative and too simple solutions are (sometimes) difficult to be adopted not only because of "economical" reasons (as you wrote) but also because these solutions seem to "violate" the law of energy conservation (you get a lot w/o paying a lot and we all know there are not "free meals" ) so we automatically suppose something is wrong with the solution. May be Einstein sentence should be rephrased: Make everything as cheap as possible, but not cheaper! Amnon hi
The second part of the story (that was not posted in the blog) touches exactlly the point you mentioned and was disscussed in the group. Too creative and too simple solutions are (sometimes) difficult to be adopted not only because of “economical” reasons (as you wrote) but also because these solutions seem to “violate” the law of energy conservation (you get a lot w/o paying a lot and we all know there are not “free meals” ) so we automatically suppose something is wrong with the solution. May be Einstein sentence should be rephrased: Make everything as cheap as possible, but not cheaper!

]]> By: Amnon Levav http://www.sitsite.com/blog/2008/09/simple-but-not-simpler/#comment-158 Amnon Levav Fri, 03 Oct 2008 02:48:08 +0000 http://www.sitsite.com/blog/?p=79#comment-158 hi Dov Excellent. Greta idea and example. Indeed, so many things could and should be simpler thatn they are. Only problem I see is: who's interest it would be. Imagine that we are invited to help a company who is bidding for this police tender. And imagine we help them come up with the 5 cent solution. Then what happens to their business? So there isnt really too much incentive for that kind of solutions. In who's business interest is it to teach people they can solve their appetite, health, clothing and transportation problems with simpler solutions. Even the government wont like it. Why? Sell 5 cent rulers instead of $50 machines to the police and the GNP goes down. So lucky there still are courses and exercises and not only businesses(: hi Dov

Excellent. Greta idea and example. Indeed, so many things could and should be simpler thatn they are. Only problem I see is: who’s interest it would be. Imagine that we are invited to help a company who is bidding for this police tender. And imagine we help them come up with the 5 cent solution. Then what happens to their business? So there isnt really too much incentive for that kind of solutions. In who’s business interest is it to teach people they can solve their appetite, health, clothing and transportation problems with simpler solutions. Even the government wont like it. Why? Sell 5 cent rulers instead of $50 machines to the police and the GNP goes down.
So lucky there still are courses and exercises and not only businesses(:

]]>