[time-nuts] Re: Clock specs for audio (was: High precision OCXO supplier for end costomers)

[usenet at teply.info]

On 10.01.22 16:23, Lux, Jim wrote:

> And I suppose this is why it's worth talking to the mfr than looking 
> through the catalogs. There might well be some key requirement that if 
> relaxed slightly would work out quite well in terms of availability.
> 
> We run into this all the time in the space business - someone does a 
> structured requirements flowdown, allocating design margin to subunits, 
> and winds up with a performance spec that is difficult to meet, and 
> nobody wants to go back up the flowdown chain and ask if the requirement 
> can be changed.  Indeed, the cost of doing the waiver might be more than 
> just buying the unnecessarily expensive part.
> 
This phenomenon is not unique to the space business, but probably most 
pronounced there due to the exorbitant cost (if at all possible) of 
replacing one part in service that's failing.

What comes on top in many other business segments, is that several steps 
down the ladder, people quite often don't have sufficient knowledge of 
the intended system and its performance metrics, and as such are not in 
the position to question individual requirements they're asked to fulfil.

On the other hand, I also got to know people doing space projects that 
were making it clear that requirements were something of a moving 
target, explicitly showed how and where they derived from and how they 
impacted the end result, and actively encouraged
a) questioning them,
b) pointing out which ones are difficult to obtain, and
c) proposing different ways to achieve the intended result.
Of course that takes a bit more time and involvement upfront. But I seem 
to recall that those projects had an above average success rate and 
below average final cost. Probably less management and more engineering 
at work ;-)

Best regards,
Florian