by 
In at least one episode (and probably more than that) of the popular TV show, NCIS , the crack sleuths of the Navy Criminal Investigative Service find interlopers in their midst — agents from the Department of Homeland Security (DeHoSe). Typically, the pretext for the unwelcome arrival of the stiffs from DeHoSe is that Jethro Gibbs's NCIS team is hunting down a criminal of the Arab and/or Muslim persuasion. (DeHoSe only does Muslims.)
As much as Gibbs, DiNozzo, McGee, Abby, and the gang dislike intrusions from their rivals at the FBI, they are vastly more miffed at the presence of the DeHoSers. After all, as long as NCIS has Ziva, and Ziva has associations with Mossad, the one and only Israeli intelligence agency, which has been tracking Middle Eastern terrorists since the 1940s, NCIS is going to be way better at Arab-grabbing than the neophytes at DeHoSe.
Inevitably, whenever a DeHoSe team shows ups on NCIS , the NCIS team shows 'em up and proves that DeHoSe is completely superfluous to the job of catching swarthy Arab badasses. Moreover, not only can NCIS do it better, so can the FBI, and so can — if you trust TV cop-show producers — the New York Police Department (NYPD).
Frankly, I do trust TV cop-show producers. I think Dick Wolf and Donald Bellisario are right. America needs a Homeland Security investigative service like Dolly Parton needs a push-up bra. The US, regardless of our role as the world's policeman, has too many spooks. DeHoSe is a fifth wheel.
The Department of Homeland Security, whose name (for some of us) summons up eerie associations with the officialese spoken in the Third Reich, was cobbled together in White House panic after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. All of its parts were lifted from other existing government agencies. Typically, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, which was doing just fine as part of the Justice Department, was not only moved to Homeland Security, but was divided into three separate agencies (USCIS, ICE, and CBP), tripling its size while adding not an iota to its mission, its competence, or its efficiency.
But I bet it costs more!
Which is my point. Right now, Republicans and Democrats in Washington are climbing all over one another trying to prove who's better at cutting a deficit that doesn't really need to be cut right now. Their main targets in this frugality derby are poor people, old people, old poor people, single mothers, and motherless kids.
Meanwhile, nobody's asking the $64 billion question: How much could we save by just closing down Homeland Security lock, stock, and paranoia, firing all those investigators whose only apparent function is annoying Jethro Gibbs, and putting all the poached agencies back where they were before 9/11?
I really don't think any regular people (outside the Beltway) would miss DeHoSe. And the savings — just by eliminating the duplication of functions, offices, and personnel — could total $64 billion.
Having scratched DeHoSe, I'm not finished. I have other huge-ticket suggestions that could save a fortune with relatively little sacrifice. For instance, close the Air Force.
Sure, when General Billy Mitchell won his heroic struggle for a US Air Force separate from the Army, it was a great idea, because airplanes turn out to be the best way to sink enemy battleships. But there ain't nobody got battleships anymore. Air Force aviation and naval aviation are carbon copies of each other. And the busiest pilots in the US armed forces are probably the ones in the Army, flying combat and transport helicopters and operating drones.
Just closing down the Air Force Academy could save another $64 billion.
Another big-money idea: Right now, Wall Street faces catastrophe every day, from millions of “high-frequency trades,” closed in milliseconds not by brokers, but by algorithms. When these automatic programs misfire and run amok (which they do), the Dow Jones can drop hundreds, even thousands of points in a matter of hours — throwing the New York Stock Exchange into chaos and ravaging companies.
However, if Congress were to enact a simple penny tax (one-cent) per Wall Street transaction, either by a trader or by an algorithm, the revenue to the American public (at no cost to the American public) would be colossal. And, since each high-frequency trade earns about one-tenth of a penny, the algorithms would be out of business. Beautiful idea, or what?
I got a million of 'em.
I'm a fan of NCIS, but a bigger fan of Homeland. In terms of cost-savings, spoiler alert: Homeland is on a premium channel. However, if you are willing to cough up the bucks, it is a great ride. However, Homeland centers on the CIA. I think they operate independently of everyone (DHS never shows up on Showtime.) And they have a handy way of cost-cutting: anyone who gets in their way is, let's say, written off the show in a dramatic manner
Wow this is simply amazing. is it really in practice and is it effective as well ?
Interesting and amusing points on Homeland. However you hit the nail on the head wrt millisecond trading. A rule that makes it prohibitively expensive to day trade might encourage longer term thinking and stop the blinkin boat rocking so much.
“Just closing down the Air Force Academy could save another $64 billion.”
David, shut down the air force station to save $64 billion is not a good idea. Such organizations/institutions are of national importance and we cannot say that they are wasting the nation's wealth or money.
Flyingscot, I don't think so far nobody had noticed about the errors in such algorithms. From where such revenue is l oozing, from invertors account or broking house.
As I was on my way to my favorite ski slope in Maine yesterday I noticed a DeHoSe SUV passing me w/ ski racks & skis loaded on top of it……..good use of my taxpayer $$$……the DeHoSe has go to go!
rohscompliant, Perhaps the ski equipment were to be used for tracking fugitives!
I would say you are spot on. It is not the supply chain …..it is a supplier or two or three. It is just in our face because BOEING is a big company which created a cutting edge passanger plane. They used more battery backed systems to replace a lot of the electro mechanical systems used in the hydraulics……..less weight more fuel savings, longer in flight mileage. Pushing new technology always has draw backs. Thankfullly all the planes were grounded and there was no tragic loss of life. My bet is that BOEING will find the fix and the 787 will go on to be a great plane.
A company like Boeing cannot exist without a water tight supply chain. By definition, Boeing's work is all about contingency, risk management and fault avoidance, which I am sure applies to their supply chain too. Therefore, one supplier's poor work cannot be attributed to all the supply chain members and to a very successful company like Boeing. In cases like this, the best any company can do is to analyse where and why things went wrong, make the required changes to move forward stronger and with improved wisdom.
Agree with Cryptoman. … and Rich 🙂 …
If it is a supplier then it is a supply chian problem. Supply chain shall have strong engineering knowledge to make sure all the outsourced development or supply chain will not become a prey for lower quality parts end up into the product. Glad there is no tragedy happened till now and Boeing should rethink and improve the quality check. Otherwise any small mistake will cost big money.
I agree with Rohscompliant. All new designs will go through some amount of 'growing pains'. It is very difficult to account for any problem that may occur, no matter how well engineered a product is. We can all blame Murphy's Law.
Almost fell out of my chair on that line, Rich. Point taken. I occasionally want to pull my hair out. Other times I just curse between gritted teeth… still other times there are no gritted teeth!
Absolutely, although I think we all have the urge to micromanage our suppliers (in whatever form they work with us), it's humanly impossible.
That said, as you point out, the systems are in place to cull the herd, if you will. However for Boeing, this could be a moment that damages their business in the medium term.
The strategic vision was a cost-efficient, fuel-efficient aircraft that was relevant to as many routes as possible. Then, leverage the supply chain like it's never been leveraged before. Makes perfect sense.
Here's hoping it very isolated problem with the battery cells themselves. The latest, from our colleague Chuck Murray at DesignNews, is that the NTSB is citing a short in one the cells. They still don't have a sense for what caused the short. (http://www.designnews.com/document.asp?doc_id=258717&itc=dn_analysis_element&)
We shall see…
Benji, great post, but have you seen Dolly Parton lately? She ain't 30 anymore.
Seriously though, this is one of those classic challenges: As taxpayers we're keen on cutting spending where we think appropriate. And clearly the Defense Department is ripe for efficiencies.
But the DOD is also a hulking consumer of electronics and an innovator as well. So I wouldn't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
I suggest a new review committee, to be headed by you and Dolly Parton, to really get to the bottom of redundancies in military spending.
Somehow this problem were not discovered during testing phases. It is not just supply chain issue. They skip steps maybe.
Yes, I agree with Boeing Sr Engineer. Outsourcing of highly engineered product is very demanding task. Involvement of not so technical supply chain and management people, with their attitude to simplfy all problems and its solution introduces many risks to program. There are many lessons to learn. I wish Boeing enginner can soon find root couse and rectify it.
There are enough blames to share here and the development only points to the complexity of the design chain and the supply chain. While we focus on what failed we forget the thousands of parts and systems that continue to function as expected.
In such a highly engineered plane, a lot of things worked as expected. Nonetheless, so much is at stake that the failure of a single part or system can have catastrophic consequences.
What this points to is the fact that the design team and the procurement team must work ever more tightly together.
Remember, this was the first time that Boeing had employed the new supply chain model that compartmentalized production and moved a significant amount of quality control back to individual parts vendors. There were some major concerns that such a model would be employed for an item that contained so many parts. Having said that, its amazing that for the want of a 10 cent thermal fuse, the Dreamliner is sleeping.
Paumanok, artfully put! But good last line aside, you raise an excellent point. Aside from not indicting the supply-chain ecosystem in general, here's hoping that Boeing doesn't sting so much from this episode that it scales back the approach on future designs.
Ah, the diddly squat metric. While often a source of controversy among engineering and managment teams and within the FAA, it is usually assigned a value of approximating zero or insufficient to the demands of the task.
I also wouldn't be so quick to assign base motives such as jealousy and/or resentment towards the Boeing person who made the comment. There were plenty of rather brilliant people at Boeing who could see, with a high degree of clarity, that an event of this type was certain, probability equal to 1, to happen, based on the management approach Boeing used with this airframe. As a result, many of them avoided this project like the plague.