[150092] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Common operational misconceptions
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (-Hammer-)
Fri Feb 17 14:18:47 2012
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 13:17:57 -0600
From: -Hammer- <bhmccie@gmail.com>
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <60D4E71A-E275-413B-8DCD-932BE124461B@delong.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Well put and great example Owen.
-Hammer-
"I was a normal American nerd"
-Jack Herer
On 2/17/2012 12:59 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> This reminds me of what I think is the biggest root misconception of th=
e 20th and 21st centuries:
>
> Rapid step-by-step training can replace conceptual education on the fun=
damentals.
>
> In other words, we have moved from the old-school of teaching people wh=
y things work and how they work to a newer school of teaching people how =
to complete specific tasks. This has had the following negative effects, =
IMHO:
>
> 1. When the only tool you have is a hammer, you try to mold every probl=
em into a nail.
> 2. When you only know a procedure for doing something and don't underst=
and the fundamentals
> of why X is supposed to occur at step Y, then when you get result A in=
stead of X, your only options
> are to either continue to step Z and hope everything turns out OK, or,=
go back to an earlier step
> and hope everything works this time.
> 3. Troubleshooting skills are limited to knowing the number of the vend=
or's help desk.
>
> I once worked with a director of QA that epitomized this. It was a smal=
l company, so, as director, he was directly responsible for most of the t=
asks in the QA lab. He was meticulous in following directions which was a=
good thing. However, when he reached a step where he did not get the exp=
ected result, he was limited to telling the engineers that the test faile=
d at step X and would not make any effort to identify or resolve the prob=
lem and would literally block the entire QA process waiting for engineeri=
ng to resolve the issue before he would continue testing. Worse, he would=
not test independent pieces of the system in parallel, so, when he block=
ed on one system failing, he wouldn't test the others, either. Further in=
vestigation revealed that this was because he didn't actually know which =
systems were or were not dependent on each other. He was so completely im=
mersed in the procedural school of thought that he was literally unwillin=
g to accept conceptual knowledge or develop an understanding of the theor=
y and principles of operation of any of the systems.
>
> Owen
>
> On Feb 17, 2012, at 8:13 AM, Mario Eirea wrote:
>
>> I definitely understand and agree with what you saying. Actually, most=
my friends are over 50 years old... I do agree with you on the generatio=
nal statement. My argument was that many people over 35 have no idea what=
they are doing, and some under 35 do know what they are doing. On thing =
is for sure, experience goes a long way. The importance is knowing the fu=
ndamentals and putting it all together (a skill that has been lost in rec=
ent times)
>>
>> I have a lot to say about the current generation of people growing up =
in this country, but that's a whole other thread in a whole other list. :=
-)
>>
>> Mario Eirea
>>
>
