Hacker News Reader

Comment by akshatpradhan | Hacker News Reader

>This means every time there's a question, it has to be submitted through a formal process, tracked, answered, documented.

I don't know why you think proper change control is a bad thing. In both software and systems engineering you submit change requests that are tracked, reviewed, assessed for risk, approved and documented. You do this to create an audit trail to identify "how we got here". Any concerns? It's documented in the ticket.

Now when it comes to civil engineering projects, where bridges can collapse, you should WANT that kind of rigorous change control of tracking, approving, and documenting.

Yes, documenting change control requires more work, but it also saves lives and creates an audit trail in case of a grave error.

View on HN

I'm not saying changes shouldn't be documented. I'm saying the people on the ground doing the work should be more empowered to use their judgement. They can do that and still document what gets changed.

As it stands now, some unforeseen circumstance in the field will necessitate a minor modification to the design. The contractor knows perfectly well what needs to be done, but instead of simply doing it, they will ask the designers to tell them to do it, so they aren't the ones responsible for it. The designer of course can't simply rubber stamp whatever the contractor says, so they have to spend time figuring out what the issue is and whether the contractor's solution is adequate. All that adds up.

>As it stands now, some unforeseen circumstance in the field will necessitate a minor modification to the design. The contractor knows perfectly well what needs to be done, but instead of simply doing it, they will ask the designers to tell them to do it, so they aren't the ones responsible for it.

You always want peer review, even for a minor modifications. We have a similar process called code review.

I think you're misreading his comment.

It's not bad, it's just more expensive than not doing it. Thus, infrastructure built today costs more.

I think he read the comment mostly right, and you're both missing there is a gaussian distribution to the effectiveness of change control

OP points out the costs of this. You point out the benefits.

Both true. But the interesting question is if and when the costs outweigh the benefits.

Well and perhaps even more interesting is the effect on delayed fixes has on TCO and safety of aging roads. Not to mention reduction in jobs sites across the Nation also reduces the individual performance of infrastructure construction companies except for a lucky few. Lots of push and pull from all directions.

Delegating responsibility down to the coal face is usually a winner for speed, and when time is money speed is important.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com