Many people ask: “When Nihao Space produces annual reports and lists, are they ‘looking for expert platforms’?”<\/p>\n
no.<\/p>\n
If you just want to make the report look more authoritative, it is the simplest and most trouble-free way to ask a few people with prestigious enough titles to name them.<\/p>\n
But Hello Space never chose this path from the beginning. Because we know very well:<\/p>\n
An industry report with real long-term value is not supported by a pile of opinions, nor by a certain title to suppress controversy, but by a set of professional judgment mechanisms that can be verified repeatedly.<\/p>\n
What we do is not to \u201cinvite experts\u201d, but to build an expert system.<\/p>\n
01<\/p>\n
The question is not \u201care there experts?\u201d but \u201chow do experts participate?\u201d<\/p>\n
In China’s commercial aerospace industry, there is never a shortage of experts.<\/p>\n
Scientific research institutes, central enterprise systems, front-line industries, investment institutions, local governments, consulting companies – almost every link has very senior and professional people.<\/p>\n
But the reality is that many \u201cexpert participation\u201d studies ultimately fail to produce judgment abilities that can be used in the long term:<\/p>\n
Experts\u2019 conclusions are highly dependent on personal experience and difficult to reuse;<\/p>\n
The calibers of different experts are separated from each other and difficult to align;<\/p>\n
Ideas are frequently cited but rarely verified by the system;<\/p>\n
Reports are released every year, but the methodology has not really been accumulated.<\/p>\n
As a result, the report looks very professional, but in fact there are not many professional judgments that are truly reusable, verifiable, and alignable.<\/p>\n
This is not a question of experts, but a question of mechanisms.<\/p>\n
02<\/p>\n
What Hello Space wants to solve is not “opinions” but “reusable judgments”<\/p>\n
Before making the annual report and industry lists, Nihaospace first did something that didn\u2019t seem so \u201csexy\u201d:<\/p>\n
Embed expert participation methods into a clear and repeatable research structure.<\/p>\n
This means that experts are not \u201cthose who give conclusions\u201d, but people who participate in verification; experts are not responsible for \u201ctaking sides\u201d, but verify whether the structure is established; what experts contribute is not their position, but the feedback of professional judgment in specific dimensions.<\/p>\n
What we are more concerned about is not “what do you think of the entire industry”, but some more specific and difficult questions:<\/p>\n
Is this classification reasonable in this segment?<\/p>\n
Does this set of data hold up on the front line?<\/p>\n
Is this judgment standard operable?<\/p>\n
Where might there be systematic cognitive biases?<\/p>\n
Only when these issues are repeatedly discussed, revised, and confirmed can an industry consensus be truly formed.<\/p>\n
03<\/p>\n
Why do we deliberately oppose \u201cnominal experts\u201d?<\/p>\n
We do not deny that there are highly influential experts in the industry.<\/p>\n
But if the way experts participate is just that: their names appear on the cover, their opinions remain in the preface, and they hardly participate in the actual research process. So this kind of “sense of authority” has very limited value to the industry in the long run.<\/p>\n
What Hello Space prefers to do is:<\/p>\n
Turn experts from \u201creferenced objects\u201d into part of the research process;<\/p>\n
Turn one-time judgments into professional inputs that can be used in the long term;<\/p>\n
Let professional value be embedded in structures, standards and methods, rather than in a single person.<\/p>\n
We don\u2019t need experts to \u201cstand behind Hello Space\u201d, but we want experts to be embedded in a set of judgment mechanisms that can be reused.<\/p>\n
Expert registration will end on January 30. Experts who are willing to participate in the report are asked to fill in the information through the link in the article. It\u2019s time for China\u2019s commercial aerospace industry to \u201cmake it clear\u201d | Open call for expert consultants for the \u201c2026 China Commercial Aerospace Industry Annual Report\u201d<\/p>\n
04<\/p>\n
What is the real value of an expert system?<\/p>\n
Judging from the results, an effective expert system does not bring an “aura of authority”, but three more important things:<\/p>\n
First, reduce the uncertainty of industry judgment. When different judgments are based on the same set of structures, differences will become understandable and discussable, rather than negating each other.<\/p>\n
Second, make industry research available for long-term use. The report is no longer “one edition per year”, but the methodology continues to evolve.<\/p>\n
Third, build a base for public discussion for the industry. Let enterprises, investors, governments, and researchers communicate on the same “industry map.”<\/p>\n
Conclusion<\/p>\n
Hello Space doesn\u2019t try to portray \u201cwho has the final say\u201d.<\/p>\n
What we really want to do is to allow China’s commercial aerospace industry, which is growing rapidly, to have for the first time a professional judgment system that can be used repeatedly, constantly revised, and accumulated over the long term.<\/p>\n
This road is much slower and more difficult than asking a few big names to name themselves. But if no one does this, the industry will always stay at the stage of “buzzing with opinions and scarce consensus.”<\/p>\n
This is why NiHaoSpace chose to build an expert system.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Many people ask: “When Nihao Space produces annual reports and lists, are they ‘looking for expert platforms’?” no. If you just want to make the report look more authoritative, it is the simplest and most trouble-free way to ask a few people with prestigious enough titles to name them. But Hello Space never chose this […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"inline_featured_image":false,"footnotes":"","_links_to":"","_links_to_target":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-25162","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25162"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=25162"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25162\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=25162"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=25162"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=25162"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}