[HN Gopher] The Heilmeier Catechism ___________________________________________________________________ The Heilmeier Catechism Author : blopeur Score : 140 points Date : 2022-06-24 09:03 UTC (1 days ago) (HTM) web link (www.darpa.mil) (TXT) w3m dump (www.darpa.mil) | cardamomo wrote: | Honestly, this seems like a great way to articulate one's goals | with any complex project. As a teacher, I could imagine using | this framework to describe a new curriculum. | | > What are you trying to do? Articulate your objectives using | absolutely no jargon. | | I'm trying to improve reading skills for all students. | | > How is it done today, and what are the limits of current | practice? | | Currently, students are grouped by ability ("reading level") for | reading instruction. This means that students who are considered | below grade level are rarely exposed texts at grade-level | complexity. | | > What is new in your approach and why do you think it will be | successful? | | Instead of grouping students by ability, I will create mixed- | ability student groups to read grade-level texts with all | students. I will provide differentiated support for students who | cannot yet read selected texts independently. This approach is | supported by Young's (2022) research, which detailed greater | reading level gains for emerging readers. | | > Who cares? If you are successful, what difference will it make? | | Students who are considered below grade level in reading will | show increased gains compared to the previous approach. | | > What are the risks? | | This approach requires more reading instruction expertise from | teachers. Teachers who are unable to adequately support below- | grade-level readers risk further delaying these readers' | progress. Because this is a change to widespread and currently | accepted instructional practices, it is likely that many teachers | and parents will resist changes to the program, either explicitly | or by falling back to previous practices. | | > How much will it cost? | | The only significant cost is in teacher professional development, | which I estimate to be $X for the first academic year and $Y in | subsequent years. | | > How long will it take? | | The new approach will be rolled out within the first 2 months of | the school year, with ongoing professional development throughout | the year. | | > What are the mid-term and final "exams" to check for success? | | We will continue to rely on the same reading assessments we have | been using. We will also conduct qualitative evaluations of | teachers' and students' attitudes toward the program in November, | February, and June. | red_admiral wrote: | It also sounds like good questions to ask students who come to | you with ideas for term projects, if your school does those. | dang wrote: | Related: | | _The Heilmeier Catechism (1977)_ - | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17272801 - June 2018 (19 | comments) | swayvil wrote: | It's like a scientific method except with an added minimal step | of abstraction. It's like a rule for technical writing except the | writing is a kind of proof. It's a clarifier, or a bullshit- | filter. This kind of precise language-use really thrills me. | hdivider wrote: | Reminds me of how different DARPA was in the early years, | compared to now. | | If you're interested in how the modern Agency functions, I'd | suggest reading _The DARPA Model for Transformative | Technologies_. | | It describes some of the typical trends in our time: contracts | too often go to entrenched players and primes, rather than | startups as primes due to technical merit rather than past | performance and relationships. DARPA personnel reaching out from | anonymous mailboxes post-RFI submission, asking if your team has | TS/Sci clearance. (No answer if it's not a complete 100% yes.) | And landlordism: extracting value from an existing system rather | than seeding many new technologies. | | However, there is still nothing like DARPA, despite its many | problems. DIU is more for near-term innovation, and had its | budget cut 20% just now. AFRL, AFWERX, Army SBIR/STTR, and so on, | are all critical but not built to prevent technological surprise. | Thank your lucky stars we have DARPA still up and running after | so many decades. | exmadscientist wrote: | To me the biggest sign that this is from a different era is | seeing a Director personally generate something of value! It | seems like leadership are all figureheads or apparatchiks or | MBAs these days, usually subtracting from the mission rather | than adding. | | The cult of professional administration is the single most | destructive thing in America today, in my opinion. | throwoutway wrote: | What is the cult of professional administration? | coderintherye wrote: | Not GP, but for me the phrase is referring to the idea that | everything needs to be professionally administered like an | enterprise business (e.g. government, colleges, etc.) with | organizational structures that reflect that. It typically | values process and procedure over curiosity and innovation. | gumby wrote: | This is a cultural plague in pretty much all activity | these days. Even in the age of memes, influencers, and | user-generated content, everything has been | professionalized, | | Professional sports has overwhelmed real amateur leagues. | The Music Industry has displaced a lot of just getting | together and singing badly. Wedding planners, summer gap | year planners, even professional Christmas tree | decorators. There are few roadside restaurants that don't | basically reheat something delivered frozen by CISCO. | Random roadside motels and amateurish amusement park | attractions have vanished in the face of chains. Even | tinkering happens at a high level. | | Sure, all the non-professional things still _exist_ , but | are a miniscule fraction of how they used to be. | trhway wrote: | I think Grand/Urban Challenge was the last great project and | success. The openness for participation was unprecedented | resulting in lot of different startups taking part (from a | "serious" point of view for example that Lewandowski autonomous | bike was in the GC 2004 basically an utter laughing stock of a | failure unimaginable in any "serious" setting, yet it was there | too, and happened to be one of the key starting points of the | modern autonomous industry). I think that success kind of | scared the "serious" system so that even for Urban Challenge | they already had a parallel "crony" track, and seems there | haven't been such an open project since then. | | Wrt. original post - interesting how the catechism is different | from the today's dominating approach of "we don't really know | what we want, just have a very vague set of desires, lets try | to achieve that small goal for that sprint which hopefully will | move us in some desired direction, and we'll see after the | sprint where it would lead us, and where we can make the next | step from there." | nextos wrote: | DARPA PPAML (probabilistic programming for ML) was pretty | good. | | It helped Stan reach maturity, and also led to things like | Pyro. | | But we need to wait a bit more to see where this goes. The | program only finished 5 years ago. | nextos wrote: | I have worked with ERC and many other funders, as well as in | DARPA-funded projects. Talked to principal investigators, | attended panel reviews, seen how projects are evaluated, etc. | | My impression is that, despite some problems, DARPA is | outstanding compared to what we have across the pond. | Obviously, that is not a reason to ignore issues or try to fix | them. | | In fact, new initiatives are often trying to mimic DARPA. For | example, Wellcome LEAP: https://wellcomeleap.org/leap- | innovation-model/ | domoritz wrote: | I learned about these from my PhD advisor and I've used them for | every research project ever since. It's been very useful and I | refer to it every month or so. | ChrisMarshallNY wrote: | _> What are you trying to do? Articulate your objectives using | absolutely no jargon._ | | I think this is _very_ important, but I have seldom seen it in | action. I tend to run into jargonauts, everywhere. | iniekaas wrote: | I've been using the catechism in everything I write throughout my | PhD. It's real a catechism for academia, it's all about answering | these questions in one way or another. | | I just start with it and start adding bullet points to answer | these questions, then I put more bullet points and expand in | them, and so on until I have enough material. Then I map it to | each section of w/e document I am writing. | | It's been one of the most useful things in I've ever learnt | about. Came to learn about it from an IEEE webinar by a professor | of power systems (Siddharth Suryanarayanan) that I stumbled upon | via vEvents when COVID-19 lockdowns started. I presented a copy | of it to my lab in my PhD, helped my lab-mates clarify things to | their supervisor and write. It was super effective. | rangersanger wrote: | I hadn't seen this before and I'm 100% going to steal it and use | it for my next product/feature/business case pitch. At least as a | start to prove value to myself. | | I'm fully aware of the utility of jargon in writing a business | case, it lets me skip over the difficult, the warts, and the | questionable. I wonder if there's a correlation between failed | projects and how jargon heavy the initiation is? | | I also really like thinking about milestones as exam points. | Calling them exams for success more directly gets at the point- | to check in and course correct. | josh2600 wrote: | We use this internally at mobilecoin as the base framework for | new PRDs. Very clarifying. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-06-25 23:00 UTC)