BRYCE ON SYSTEMS
– Using a “Common Core” analogy to explain why our “PRIDE” Methodology is still far ahead.
(Click for AUDIO VERSION)
To use this segment in a Radio broadcast or Podcast, send TIM a request.
It is a strange feeling when you realize you are noticeably ahead of the industry on something. At first it is rewarding, followed by a sense of frustration when you face competition from inferior products, particularly if they are based on pseudo-scientific technology. This leads me to make the boastful claim…
“What we introduced in 1971 as our original “PRIDE” Methodology for System Design, is still light years ahead of the industry.”
It’s not bragging when it is a fact. Our original product back then was based on simple, commonsense principles based on engineering and manufacturing. Since then, we introduced many other concepts and software to support it, such as automated systems design, software used to deduce a system design based on information requirements. I know of no other product or company who was able to emulate our products. This is primarily due to the fact we consider system design as a science as opposed to an art form. By clearly defining our terminology, and proving our concepts, we were able to do such things as automated system design, not to mention priority modeling, organization analysis, impact analysis, and a lot more.
The difference between “PRIDE” and our competitors is analogous to how mathematics is to be implemented under the new “Common Core” curriculum. To illustrate, let’s consider the concept of subtraction:
“Old Fashioned” Way –
32 -12 —
20
However, the proponents of Common Core now recommend a new convoluted approach:
The “New” Way
32-12=___
12 + 3 = 15 15 + 5 = 20 20 + 10 = 30 30 + 2 = 32 __
20