Has the Mission of the TSA become its Methodology?
Aug 4, 2011, 8:24 pm
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Nashville, TN
Programs: WN Nothing and spending the half million points from too many flights, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 8,043
Has the Mission of the TSA become its Methodology?
At its inception, the TSA's mission (my paraphrase) was to provide safety and security for commercial aviation. I think most of us will likely agree that some form of aviation security is needed. For now, let's stick to aviation security in spite of mission creep.
Where we disagree is on the methodology. What techniques are effective? Which techniques can be done without infringing on constitutional rights? Which of the techniques are total wastes of time? Which methods may actually be dangerous to the traveling public? We endlessly discuss these things commenting on the latest stupidities and atrocities and even the successes and new technologies that may improve the screening.
In the meantime, it appears to me that the methodology has become the mission.
The mission now is to make sure that everyone gets screened a certain way. Everyone must comply. The rules are made and applied without any apparent discrimination in application. The war on water, the shoe carnival, say your name and others have taken on a greater importance than the original mission.
My current signature line is "The purpose of a system is what it does." In a complex system, the system is defined not by its written specification, not by what its spokespeople say it is, not even by the original design and specification. A complex system's purpose is defined by what it does.
The TSA has become such a complex system. We can no longer determine its purpose except by observation and analysis of what it does.
And what it does is apply the methods that have been prescribed, whether they have value or not, whether they are effective or not, whether they have logical justification or not.
The mission has become the application of the methodology.
It is no longer about safety and security, at least not directly. It is a hope that the methods provide these but it is without guarantee. What is guaranteed is that the methodology will be applied. The purpose of the system has transformed itself from one of attempting to provide safety and security to the application of methods one hopes will do the same.
I could very well be wrong. I also hope that the subtle difference is apparent. Let's discuss.
(If unworthy of discussion this will soon find its way to the chirping crickets of Page 2.)
Where we disagree is on the methodology. What techniques are effective? Which techniques can be done without infringing on constitutional rights? Which of the techniques are total wastes of time? Which methods may actually be dangerous to the traveling public? We endlessly discuss these things commenting on the latest stupidities and atrocities and even the successes and new technologies that may improve the screening.
In the meantime, it appears to me that the methodology has become the mission.
The mission now is to make sure that everyone gets screened a certain way. Everyone must comply. The rules are made and applied without any apparent discrimination in application. The war on water, the shoe carnival, say your name and others have taken on a greater importance than the original mission.
My current signature line is "The purpose of a system is what it does." In a complex system, the system is defined not by its written specification, not by what its spokespeople say it is, not even by the original design and specification. A complex system's purpose is defined by what it does.
The TSA has become such a complex system. We can no longer determine its purpose except by observation and analysis of what it does.
And what it does is apply the methods that have been prescribed, whether they have value or not, whether they are effective or not, whether they have logical justification or not.
The mission has become the application of the methodology.
It is no longer about safety and security, at least not directly. It is a hope that the methods provide these but it is without guarantee. What is guaranteed is that the methodology will be applied. The purpose of the system has transformed itself from one of attempting to provide safety and security to the application of methods one hopes will do the same.
I could very well be wrong. I also hope that the subtle difference is apparent. Let's discuss.
(If unworthy of discussion this will soon find its way to the chirping crickets of Page 2.)
Aug 4, 2011, 8:35 pm
#2
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 319
Well put, I think.
I read a piece somewhere else that said essentially what you did from another perspective. The author proposed that the TSA mission is not public safety (which it arguably should be) and instead is rule enforcement. I had never before considered how different those two things can be.
I read a piece somewhere else that said essentially what you did from another perspective. The author proposed that the TSA mission is not public safety (which it arguably should be) and instead is rule enforcement. I had never before considered how different those two things can be.
Aug 4, 2011, 8:47 pm
#4
Original Poster
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Nashville, TN
Programs: WN Nothing and spending the half million points from too many flights, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 8,043
Maybe.
I would agree wholeheartedly if indeed the provision of safety and security had a one to one equivalence to the application of the methods. Originally, they may have and probably did. However, the application of the rules have developed into their own independent purposes, many times separate from the original intent.
I did say the difference is subtle.
I would agree wholeheartedly if indeed the provision of safety and security had a one to one equivalence to the application of the methods. Originally, they may have and probably did. However, the application of the rules have developed into their own independent purposes, many times separate from the original intent.
I did say the difference is subtle.