Digital BW, The Print

Stan McQueen wrote:

>At 03:16 PM 8/1/2002, Keith wrote:
>  
>
>>Blue Ribbon Panel = "cover for justifying the steps some bureaucratic
>>entity or key decisionmaker had already decided upon"
>>
>>see subheadings:
>>Challenger Disaster
>>Warren Commission
>>War against Drugs
>>Gore commission on air travel safety and security
>>National Health Care Insurance
>>    
>>
>
>As I recall, the presence of Richard Feynmann on the Challenger Panel 
>resulted in a finding that was actually useful, albeit one that some 
>engineers at Thiokol had already warned about. The warnings were 
>disregarded. Anyway, as many may recall, while others were speaking (or 
>pontificating), Feynmann was soaking a piece of o-ring material in ice 
>water. When it was his to turn to speak, he pulled the material out of the 
>ice and snapped it in pieces. (See "An Outsider's Inside View of the 
>Challenger Inquiry" by Richard P. Feynmann, Physics Today, February 1988, 
>pp. 26-37.) Basically, he forced the commission to come to a real, as 
>opposed to political, conclusion.
>
>  
>
Agreed 100%!

I added Challenger knowing that story quite well..

The story you so nicely told for me was  EXACTLY why Challenegr was 
included on the list.. Feynmann's guts and moxie on  that panel serve as 
a sign of how far one has to go to get a blue ribbon panel to act like a 
truly independent advisory group instead of a sycophantic organization 
of rubber stamping toadies..

A blue ribbon panel can work, but you have to have someone brave, 
independent, and knowledgeable acknowledged as a group/panel leader 
(unofficially - int need not be the chairperson) to make sure it does 
more than  trumpet the current party line..

I don't think anyone with a vested interest in a political outcome to 
the inquiry was likely to do what Feynmann did..  Similarly, when people 
on any panel have a vested interest in certain outcomes (maintiaining a 
market for profiles, or avoiding responsibility for a bad engineering 
choice) don't expect them to leave those vested interests at the door to 
the hearing room..

Does anyone know if there was a single expert on EPSON's panel who had 
publicly criticized earlier EPSON marketing choices?  If not, don't 
expect true objectivity..  Instead, expect groupthink..

Don't misinterpret me either..  I'm saying you need honest critics, not 
that the panel needs to be even mostly critics.. Market/focus segments 
with a vested interest in the outcome need to be included as well, to 
make sure the spectrum of opinions and interests are represented.. 
 Usually, the panel is carefully selected to look objective while wtill 
ensuring that certain results/findings are certain.

What happens when there is NO honest information broker?  Just what we 
saw economically when you allow banks that are investing in a 
corporation to sell stock in that corporation and one-in-the-same-time 
provide "objective analysts" of stocks to news outlets.  There were 
reasons for erecting a Chinee wall between brokers and bankers or 
between auditors and consultants...  Similarly, if you want true 
objectivity on a panel, you have to include some of the critics.. 
Nothing is more basicto the operation of a good independent panel. 
That's why fields as varied and interrelated as  marketing, sociologr, 
polticial science, finance, or and psychology cite this honest brokering 
of information and a willingness in some panel members to differ from 
the accepted view as essential elements to effective group dynamics and 
forum operation.. 

Keith
 
 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]