[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
You hit it in the last sentence, Barton. It means they must
**recognize** all of the requirements and be practiced at
supporting them. Further, the environment in which they
'make' must support them with tools and policies that
free them up to make more effectively and often. Last,
they must have heightened awareness of new requirements
in the setup phase. That is improvisation: seeing the
setup so that the faster than real time response can
be formulated and articulated such that to the audience,
it appears to be spontaneous. Jam bands don't make it
up out of thin air. The jam makes them up.
Listening is everything. Rehearsal is next. Better to have
a band that listens well and rehearses less than the reverse.
That is why good commedians and good musicians riff with ease.
Interestingly, they choose the term 'making' which is the
original meaning of 'poeta' or poetry. This analogy has
been made in our industry before.
Thanks for taking the time to read the article and respond
with considered insight.
len
"Hit fast. Hit hard. Hit often.' - Admiral William Halsey
From: Barton Stanley [mailto:Barton.Stanley@innovision.com]
> Can an innovative environment produce a trusted computing system?
I am intrigued by the original question for this thread. As I started
to read the cited article, I was reminded of an aphorism that has been
with me lo these many years:
"It took creativity to get the first airplane off the ground and it
takes engineering to keep any airplane in the air."
(Unfortunately, I do not have an attribution for this. I'd appreciate
any substantive leads on finding one, though.)
Midway through the article I was a bit peeved and my response to the
question was:
If by "innovative environment" you mean an environment in which
creativity and improvisation reign, then I say the answer is "no".
If you mean one in which engineering and all the latest technology
are king, then I again say, "no". If however you mean an environment
in which thinking, feeling human beings somehow manage to find an
effective balance between these two, then I say the answer is
a resounding "yes".
By the end of the article, I decided that I was in violent agreement
with the author. Instead of "creativity" he uses the term "artful
making" and instead of "engineering" he uses the term "industrial
making":
"It's important to recognize that artful and industrial making are
not mutually exclusive. Artful making doesn't replace industrial
making. Artful making should not be applied everywhere, nor should
industrial making. They complement each other and often can be used in
combination. Complementary doesn't mean interchangeable, though. As
opportunities for artful making multiply with the expansion of the
knowledge work sector of business, managers and other workers must be
careful not to attempt to solve artistic problems with industrial
methods, and vice versa."
I still prefer the aphorism as a way of expressing this, though. :)
> In short, the market demands innovation AND security. Can we
> 'do the simplest thing that will possibly work' and still produce
> a secure system.
I am puzzled by this. To me, the definition of something that will
"work" is something that fulfills all the necessary requirements.
So, if the "simplest thing that will possibly work" fulfills all
the necessary requirements of a secure system, then the answer must
of course be "yes". Am I missing something?
|
