Stardate 20010628.1654 (On Screen): Yet again it is proved that a committee has a huge number of asses but no brains. Speaking as an engineer, I have never yet seen a successful planning process where a goal is set based exclusively on desirability. The right way to set a planning process is to concentrate on means and resources, and then to
predict the result based on that. Then when the process is complete you put the plan into affect, and hope to achieve that result. As the process continues you monitor progress, and if it's going slow you reevaluate the means and resources.
A UN chartered committee has set the goal of reducing the new HIV infection rate by "25% by the year 2005". That is entirely too round a number for my taste, because it indicates that it isn't based on a detailed analysis of the expected result of specific efforts. Rather, someone tossed a number in the air and everyone else said "That sounds good." Now everyone involved in the process can go home with a warm feeling of having done something important. About the only concrete action here was a pledge of more money, which is definitely a good thing (if the pledgers actually follow through, which remains to be seen). But I would have felt a lot better about this if the plan had rather involved things like "distribution of at least 300 million condoms world wide over the next four years", along with an analysis of where the condoms were going to come from, where they were going to go, and who was going to pay for them. Now that is a "plan". (discuss)
