|
|
|
|
|
|
by _benedict
3589 days ago
|
|
|
I deleted from my comment an explicit calling out of this feedback loop, as it was implied, I thought, by the statement that the measurement and testing were both important, but of limited value by themselves. However I disagree that measurements have any meaning unless they are conducted as experiments, or potentially as exploratory work looking for an experiment to conduct. Even such exploratory work needs to be driven by at least the loosest of hypotheses, since measuring everything is infeasible. So this is just as much an experiment, just one you don't have a high expectation of predicting the outcome of. Either way, this recognition of the necessity of at least a minimal hypothesis in all of these scenarios is typically lacking is my fundamental point. The cycle of revision of that hypothesis is clearly the next step and, as I say, I thought clearly implied. |
|
|
> Either way, this recognition of the necessity of at least a minimal hypothesis in all of these scenarios is typically lacking is my fundamental point.
That's an overly broad definition of hypothesis that results in every decision-making process fitting the model. Even the "measure, test" people you were complaining about have that. They formulate a "minimal hypothesis", take measurements, fix what they see, and call it a day. What they don't do is iterate on the process and get down to the root causes.
Furthermore, in some closed systems measuring everything (at some level of granularity) is feasible. It leads to a troubleshooting cycle of continuously focusing the measurement towards an indeterminate point, with the specific point being the answer. This kind of fault isolation is much more productive, in general, than continuously developing and testing hypotheses about what specific things might be an issue.