An apology for all occasions

George Rebane

[In my long working career I was privileged and very lucky to have worked with and under some truly remarkable and very smart people.  One of these was an older systems engineer extraordinaire and a complete gentleman by the name of Skip Case.  I was technically his peer, but I never considered myself as such.  In a number of different ways Skip taught all of us who worked with him.  Those who also bothered to learn, benefitted from his wisdom.

Skip died a few years back, a little before I started RR, and was then only occasionally posting on the SESF website.  When I heard the news, it hit me that over the decades I and several others had been profitably using a phrase that he taught us years ago.  To remember Skip, I wrote the following vignette and posted it on the SESF website.  My most recent use of the phrase in a comment recalled the vignette, and I retrieved it to share with RR readers.  You may also find it useful some day, especially in the heated discussions of complex issues we cover here.]

Skip Case RIP

George Rebane – 21 May 2007

The conference room was crowded with the company’s elite engineering talent and top management for a very important system design review meeting.  The decision taken today would impact the company’s standing and future role as the nation’s leading nuclear submarine combat systems developer and manufacturer.  In 1968 as a young hotshot engineer I was privileged to be included in that tense gathering of greats in a very secretive industry critical to the country’s well-being, yet almost completely and purposefully unknown to the outside world. On board every operational fleet ballistic missile and attack submarine of our Navy, our company’s systems were the ones that would likely fire the opening salvos of WW3.

One of the company’s senior project engineers had just completed a presentation of an important design concept on which the effectiveness of the new system would hinge.  He was a man in his late forties of small yet lithe stature and thinning neatly combed hair.  What especially distinguished Skip’s presence was his gaze – he had the most focused and level gaze which when turned on you established an intellectual connection that would bind like a taught rope.  Using the fewest words needed, Skip always spoke precisely and with a calm urgency that made the listener want to lean forward in his chair so as not to miss a single pearl.

Engineering, as a demanding technical profession, is often a ruthless forum in which mistakes and errors are pounced upon by peers for ego gratification, reputation enhancement, and generally counting coup.  Such critiques are most often spontaneous but sometimes, especially when corporate management will be present, they are planned ambushes of great sophistication.  That morning a mid-level division manager with a short career as a practicing engineer rose to deliver a withering critique of the just concluded presentation.  It was obviously a long-planned critique that had still been in deep rehearsal while Skip was talking. And it was apparent to us all that he had not understood the very essence of the design approach.  As he concluded with a knowing glance to the company’s chief technical officer (Chief Engineer in those days), all eyes turned to Skip.

Remaining seated with hands folded, Skip fixed his attacker in that signature gaze and, with incredible calm and no hint of sarcasm, said,
 
“I’m sorry, I didn’t say it well enough for you to understand.”
 
… and paused.  As the semantic impact of this simple sentence settled in our minds most of us were astounded.  I remember scrambling to record those words in my notebook and I wasn’t alone. The managerial upstart was dumbfounded, he didn’t know on whom those contrite words put blame or shame.  He wanted to strike back, but no obvious target had been presented.  While his would-be nemesis was so consternated, Skip proceeded to quickly correct the man’s error and the meeting went on to a productive conclusion.

In his wisdom Skip Case settled a potentially contentious and divisive situation with a sentence that allowed everyone to draw their own distinct yet proper meaning of the occasion depending on their position and perspective.  All of us left the room with those words in mind.  I was fortunate to count Skip as one of my mentors and to sit at his knee during those early years.  And since that time I also have learned to apologize when I could not say it well enough for my respondent to understand – but still not as well as Skip.

Comments

[Douglas Keachie]

And you do pracrtice what you preach here, I missed getting around for thanking you for your self correction the other day.

For the opposite side of the coin, all professions have their screwups, here is one sure to warm the cockles of Todd's heart.

http://www.mercurynews.com/nation-world/ci_20592782/teacher-may-lose-job-over-cone-shame

[Michael Anderson]

So George, here's a hypothetical: If Skip were to say to an engineer, "I’m sorry, I didn’t say it well enough for you to understand," and the engineer came back with, "No, you said it well enough for me to understand, you're just wrong," what would he say next?

[Gregory]

A man's got to know his limitations.

If the other responded with "No, you said it well enough for me to understand, you're just wrong" with the set of facts presented, he'd better be not only a mid-level manager but also the nephew of the founder, as the reaming would have been blistering, though, I suspect, low key and aligned with the old Klingon proverb, "Revenge is a dish best served cold".

[George Rebane]

MichaelA 1240pm - Skip, and any of the rest of us would go to 'the mat' and openly review the technical aspects of the design that was purported to by "wrong". Fortunately engineering is a field when two people proficient in an area can do this. And when the design review doesn't give a verdict, it will nevertheless expose the problem to be in the adopted( and always subjective)utility function, the assessment of uncertainties (probabilities), or the credibility of the (exogeneous) data sources.

Gregory describes the response correctly in the case the critic was off base. As long time professionals, we have all seen that cold dish served with exquisite precision, always starting a couple of levels down 'to bring the critic up to speed' on what he obviously overlooked or missed in his education. For the audience such sessions are almost always a joy to behold.

In mushy fields such resolutions are seldom possible, and politics (or shared DNA) rules the day.

[Douglas Keachie]

And:

In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.

We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie,
In Flanders fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.

Our is but to do and die, and to never question Why?

The current state of the American populace, at least the bottom 90%, is best expressed here, in "Comfortably Numb." A condition brought on by decisions in board rooms and caucuses at the highest political levels of both parties.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWnapx502uQ