ygolo
My termites win
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2007
- Messages
- 6,138
Thinking about feasibility is a part of Design Thinking, and other similar models for creating long lasting solutions to problems. It is abstracted in mathematics as a way of constraining optimization problems. It is talked about in Project Management.
These days, especially in the technology sector, ignoring feasibility seems better to get funding, win contests, get recognition, and otherwise gain resources. There is a lot of hopium in the air.
Part of the reason for this is that there is a tacit assumption that we can figure things out ...eventually. There is also a thought that since technology is progressing so fast, and since science and tech folk are always building and improving, things become more feasible over time, so other risks are more important.
I would like to put forward the concept that feasibility can never be spoken independent of the resources and time-frame we are talking about. Given unlimited time and unlimited resources, anything that isn't mathematically or physically impossible seems feasible. If you want something developed in a fraction of a second, anything other than a twitch, reflex, or something of that order is not feasible for a single human. There is also Bill Gates' observation that “Most people overestimate what they can do in one year and underestimate what they can do in ten years.”
I want to make this more precise. Depending on whatever we are doing, some understanding of feasibility plays a role. Silicon Valley's "Fake it till you make it" culture that brought you the likes of Theranos, the Fyre Festival, and even old school things like Waterfall Development where feasibility becomes a craps-shoot for the tiny fraction of the model called "testing" which only happens after "implementation" and lead to things like the initial fiasco of healthcare.gov. Now the modern buzzword of agile which proved to have much higher success rates are turning into less and less feasible things as well, with vaporware, and false promises of technology once again on the rise.
A "technologist" often no longer needs to have a grounding in engineering or science. They may nominally come from these worlds sometimes. But their promotion rates and general career successes are buoyed by a steady stream of making promises that can't be delivered (but they won't be around for that part).
As someone who loves technology and would like to see it help humanity, I find this trend of rewarding hype and discounting substance very detrimental.
These days, especially in the technology sector, ignoring feasibility seems better to get funding, win contests, get recognition, and otherwise gain resources. There is a lot of hopium in the air.
Part of the reason for this is that there is a tacit assumption that we can figure things out ...eventually. There is also a thought that since technology is progressing so fast, and since science and tech folk are always building and improving, things become more feasible over time, so other risks are more important.
I would like to put forward the concept that feasibility can never be spoken independent of the resources and time-frame we are talking about. Given unlimited time and unlimited resources, anything that isn't mathematically or physically impossible seems feasible. If you want something developed in a fraction of a second, anything other than a twitch, reflex, or something of that order is not feasible for a single human. There is also Bill Gates' observation that “Most people overestimate what they can do in one year and underestimate what they can do in ten years.”
I want to make this more precise. Depending on whatever we are doing, some understanding of feasibility plays a role. Silicon Valley's "Fake it till you make it" culture that brought you the likes of Theranos, the Fyre Festival, and even old school things like Waterfall Development where feasibility becomes a craps-shoot for the tiny fraction of the model called "testing" which only happens after "implementation" and lead to things like the initial fiasco of healthcare.gov. Now the modern buzzword of agile which proved to have much higher success rates are turning into less and less feasible things as well, with vaporware, and false promises of technology once again on the rise.
A "technologist" often no longer needs to have a grounding in engineering or science. They may nominally come from these worlds sometimes. But their promotion rates and general career successes are buoyed by a steady stream of making promises that can't be delivered (but they won't be around for that part).
As someone who loves technology and would like to see it help humanity, I find this trend of rewarding hype and discounting substance very detrimental.
