<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Brakes, GPS and the feasibility filter</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.sitsite.com/blog/2009/02/brakes-gps-and-the-feasibility-filter/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.sitsite.com/blog/2009/02/brakes-gps-and-the-feasibility-filter/</link>
	<description></description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 17 May 2012 15:32:40 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Amit Mayer</title>
		<link>http://www.sitsite.com/blog/2009/02/brakes-gps-and-the-feasibility-filter/#comment-315</link>
		<dc:creator>Amit Mayer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 05 Feb 2009 09:40:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sitsite.com/blog/?p=139#comment-315</guid>
		<description>Hi Fabian.

I thought that your remark regarding the "control" or "corrective" nature of the breaks and the GPS examples is very interesting. 
With the breaks - the corrective function is inherent in the product. 
With the GPS, however, the use I was describing takes advantage of the product in ways that are different than it's intended purpose (i.e. NOT getting lost).

In that respect - this is a more relevant analogy to the use of the "black hat" thinking characterizing the feasibility filter to allow the "opposite" type of thinking in the preceding phase.

Thanks for your comments!

Amit.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Fabian.</p>
<p>I thought that your remark regarding the &#8220;control&#8221; or &#8220;corrective&#8221; nature of the breaks and the GPS examples is very interesting.<br />
With the breaks - the corrective function is inherent in the product.<br />
With the GPS, however, the use I was describing takes advantage of the product in ways that are different than it&#8217;s intended purpose (i.e. NOT getting lost).</p>
<p>In that respect - this is a more relevant analogy to the use of the &#8220;black hat&#8221; thinking characterizing the feasibility filter to allow the &#8220;opposite&#8221; type of thinking in the preceding phase.</p>
<p>Thanks for your comments!</p>
<p>Amit.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Fabian Szulanski</title>
		<link>http://www.sitsite.com/blog/2009/02/brakes-gps-and-the-feasibility-filter/#comment-313</link>
		<dc:creator>Fabian Szulanski</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Feb 2009 12:54:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sitsite.com/blog/?p=139#comment-313</guid>
		<description>Both examples, brakes and GPS are control processes, where there exists a gap between a curerent and a desired condition, and a corrective action is taken. The interesting link with FFF is that by design, the Closed World should contain the component that would allow for that corrective action. 
Now come some questions: 
Is FFF normally used for devising control processes such as those two? 
If affirmative, would that still be a "voice of the product" project, or would be a combination of voices of product and customer?
Cheers!
Fabian</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Both examples, brakes and GPS are control processes, where there exists a gap between a curerent and a desired condition, and a corrective action is taken. The interesting link with FFF is that by design, the Closed World should contain the component that would allow for that corrective action.<br />
Now come some questions:<br />
Is FFF normally used for devising control processes such as those two?<br />
If affirmative, would that still be a &#8220;voice of the product&#8221; project, or would be a combination of voices of product and customer?<br />
Cheers!<br />
Fabian</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

