Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.electronics.design > #446293

Re: OT: in favour of gradualism

Show all headers | View raw

On 2017-02-04 13:15, Don Y wrote:
> On 2/4/2017 1:07 PM, Joerg wrote:
>> On 2017-02-04 11:34, Don Y wrote:
>>> On 2/4/2017 8:24 AM, Joerg wrote:
>>>> On 2017-02-03 08:35, Don Y wrote:
>>>>> On 2/3/2017 5:21 AM, Winfield Hill wrote:
>>>>>> bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Atul Gawande has written another impressive piece for the New Yorker
>>>>>>> http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/01/23/the-heroism-of-incremental-care
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is mainly a plea for better primary-care medicine - what your
>>>>>>> own doctor does for you at your local practice - but it includes
>>>>>>> a reference to the 1967 collapse of the Silver Bridge across the
>>>>>>> Ohio River, which was due to a failure in inspection and
>>>>>>> maintenance,
>>>>>>> making the point that while doing heroic operations and building
>>>>>>> new bridges are both extremely glamorous, the cost-benefit analysis
>>>>>>> says that it's better to spend time on making sure that what's
>>>>>>> working stays working, and perhaps improve it a bit from time to
>>>>>>> time.  Development rather than a new design from scratch.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  Would that we could snap our fingers and get a doctor like that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why do we EXPECT medical professionals to be more "dedicated"
>>>>> than any other profession?
>>>>
>>>> Because we as engineers are dedicated?
>>>
>>> You've never met a "9-to-5" engineer?
>>
>> Yes, but usually in government positions. Very occasionally in private
>> industry
>> but then those were very bright folks.
>
> I've experience/exposure to gummit labs (i.e., all of their funding
> comes from the taxpayer), large multinationals (i.e., tens of thousands
> of employees worldwide), large corporations (thousands of employees),
> startups (one to four souls) and struggling wannabes (~100 bodies).
>

There's part of the problem. You should have looked at companies much 
smaller than that. That is also, and not by chance, where most 
innovation happens.


> In virtually all of those scenarios, it was rare to find folks
> EAGER to spend THEIR TIME pursuing the corporate goal.  The few
> cases I was able to single out were typically very bright/inquisitive
> folks who were completely engaged in the CHALLENGE before them.
>

A very nice countermeasure to such passive behavior is also a good old 
American one: Stock options. I never had any job without those. At my 
last employer before starting self-employed every employee had them, 
plus a stock purchase program. IOW we were de facto partly employee-owned.


>>> I had a (regular) job, many years ago.  Bringing up the prototype
>>> I naturally was excited and "didn't want the day to end" (until
>>> seeing it run).
>>>
>>> Next day, boss called me in his office and casually mentioned:
>>>     "I see you kept the guys here until 8PM last night..."
>>> (keep in mind, *I* am not the project manager.  nor have any
>>> other "special responsibilities" as far as the project was
>>> concerned -- Just Another Engineer with my little portion of
>>> the pie)
>>>
>>> I was startled by the comment -- as if it was an accusation.
>>
>> If it was a union shop it might have been.
>
> Nope.  Just a big Fortune 500.  Staff wasn't used to "working late"
> ("The problem will still be here, waiting for us, Monday morning.
> If the company can afford the time for these meetings and other
> cruft, they surely can afford to wait until then!") and management
> didn't expect them to!
>

Not a place I'd like to work at as an employee. As a consultant, no 
problem, but not as an employee.


>>> He went on to say that he couldn't recall the last time ANY of
>>> "the guys" had stayed past 5PM.
>>
>> That doesn't sound like a place I'd want to work at. Don't get me
>> wrong, I
>> strongly believe in balancing one's private life with work and pulling
>> all-nighters year round isn't good. Neither is living off Big Macs and
>> 128oz
>> caffeine-laced sodas with tons of sugar. People make too many mistakes
>> then
>> anyhow and they should have a life. Even engineers. However, dropping the
>> pencil at 5:00:00 no matter what is not cool. There has to be some
>> flexibility.
>
> Why?  Do you expect your dentist to be willing to work late as often as
> folks show up WANTING him to work late (on their problems)?  Or, your
> plumber?  Or, the landscaper?  Or...
>

If there is an emergency I prefer to have a dentist who won't simply say 
"Oh, I'll give you a prescription for the mother of all pain pills and 
then you come in some times next week when we have an opening, ok?"

I know dentists who'd do that but I always made sure we had ones who didn't.


> Just because you have *one* project (or ten!), doesn't mean you should
> be slave to it.  What cost should your wife/kids bear for your
> "dedication"?
>

That's why I wrote that I believe in work/life balance. You can't make 
overtime routine and it wouldn't be healthy for anyone.


>> In my consulting agreement I have a clause that if I have to work
>> after hours
>> or on holidays because the situation demands it there will never be an
>> upcharge
>> (which some other professions tend to do).
>
> IME, that's usually a result of someone's unrealistic expectations/demands
> or poor planning.
>

No, it is usually the result of something that unexpectedly went wrong, 
typically very wrong. My first consulting job ever happened on the 
morning of my first day in the office. I had clients signed up before 
starting. Phone rang around 6am, over and over again. So I went down the 
hallway in my pajamas, picked it up. "We are at a trade show, our 
flagship system went PHUT *POOF* and the service guys can't get it going 
again. Could you come here, and please floor it?"


> When I was young, bosses could brow beat me into agreeing to unrealistic
> schedules.  I've literally run out of the shop with THE prototype in my
> hand
> as I tried to finish wiring it before field trials.
>

Yeah, unrealistic schedules are especially typical in med tech. 
Unfortunately.


> With time and experience, I learned that folks will ALWAYS want more.  Why
> not?  *I* would want more!  Its up to me to discipline the use of my time
> in a manner with which I'm comfortable -- NOT my employer/client.
>

With me, if they want more they also pay more :-)

I strictly work by time and materials, never fixed bid. Ever.


> I recall a 5PM progress meeting with a client on a Friday.  After
> discussing
> some changes to the design, the question was asked:  "So, do you think
> we can
> see something MONDAY?"  I worked hard at keeping my expression "cool" and
> replied:
>     "Well, as it's now 6:30PM on /FRIDAY/, I don't see how that is
> possible..."
> I.e., "No, I'm not keen on giving up MY weekend any more than I see YOU
> willing to give up YOURS!"
>

Sure, got to be assertive. Unless it is an unexpected issue and the 
trade show starts Monday. And then I'd expect the employer to rewards 
these employees nicely, in a way that their family is also rewarded. 
Fully paid trip to Disneyland with the kids, things like that.


>>> I did a gig at an IBM facility where the shifts were staggered
>>> in 6 minute intervals.  I'd watch the engineers that I was
>>> working with diligently gather up their belongings to ensure
>>> they'd be leaving in their assigned 6 minute interval -- while
>>> I'd typically spend much of the night continuing my tasks.
>>
>> That would drive me crazy.
>
> Apparently, they found the benefits and demands (lack thereof)
> more than compensatory!
>
> I'm lucky in that I can work when I want.  And, largely, under the
> circumstances of my own choosing.  So, if I'm engrossed in a
> particular aspect of a problem, I can continue to work on it
> regardless of the time of day or other potential commitments
> ("Why don't you get yourself something to eat as I'm going to be
> busy with this for a while...")
>
> But, I *love* my work.  Few other folks that I've met can say
> that -- even if they revel in  the challenges presented.
>

Same here. I really like my work and I am self-employed. Of course, this 
also means that clients can have an emergency and then I am there for 
them. They know that and they do not take advantage of me just like I 
would not call a dentist on a weekend unless the pain was truly unbearable.


>>>>> Next time you "cut a corner", think about the likelihood that
>>>>> your healthcare providers are behaving similarly -- do you think
>>>>> YOU cut that corner out of malice, laziness, ignorance, etc.?
>>>>
>>>> Some of us don't cut corners.
>>>
>>> Every engineering decision cuts a corner -- everything is a tradeoff.
>>> *You* decided which way to cut the corner (in favor of X over Y).
>>>
>>> Do you strive for -- and achieve -- "perfection" with every design?
>>
>> Generally yes. Perfection to me and in the eyes of my clients is when the
>> design is reliable, easily produceable and below cost target.
>
> To the healthcare provider, we KNOW the patient WILL DIE.
> So, as long as he gets to live another day, is that "perfection"?
> If you could have eeked out a few more cents on the product cost...
> or, increased the MTBF or decreased the MTTR by a bit more, isn't
> that MORE perfect?  In the health care analogy, if you could
> ensure the patients chances of surviving for N years were increased
> by X%, wouldn't that be a more dedicated professional?
>

Perfection is more multi-faceted than that. The client needs to feel all 
around happy about a design. Or a problem presented to me to be remedied 
must completely vanish. That to me and to my clients is perfection.


>>> If you leave the MD's office in better condition than when you
>>> arrived, has he *not* cut a corner?  Could you have left in
>>> EVEN BETTER condition?  Should he hound you AT HOME to follow
>>> his prescribed treatment plan?  How *dedicated* is he -- not?
>>
>> What is usually meant by cutting corners is not small compromises.
>> It's the
>> bigger stuff, things that can have dire consequences. Example: I had
>> major back
>> issues in the past. What did most of the medical pros do? The usual,
>> inject
>> cortizone, prescribe pain pills, prescribe muscle relaxant. _That_ is
>> cutting a
>> corner. Finally another professional (not an MD but a CPA!) told me I
>> might
>> have a magnesium deficiency and it couldn't hurt to take supplements
>> for a
>> while. Half a year later I felt a lot better and have never had a
>> debilitating
>> back pain attack ever since. It has been over a decade now so I can be
>> quite
>> sure that the medical diagnosis of the CPA was better than that of
>> several MDs.
>
> You spec a 2000hr part in a power supply.  It meets the design
> specifications.


I don't do that. First, electrolytics have a measured loss of 
capacitance over xxxx hours if constantly at the temperature in that 
rating. Even then they do not die after 2000h. Secondly, a 2000h/85C cap 
will never be granted entry into any design of mine. Third, I'd never 
spec a bulk capacitance so close that a 50% drop would cause the circuit 
to become iffy. In fact, I avoid electrolytics altogether whenever possible.

BTW, some electrolytics are stunning. On Hammond organs they place the 
big electrolytc right next to the rectifier tube which gets really hot. 
Beats me why, I'd never do that. The organ we have sometimes ran to days 
on end at the previous owner, mostly because they forgot to turn it off. 
This electrolytic entered service in 1961 and is still going strong.


> It meets the expected lifespan of the product (e.g., clears warranty).


Barely clearing a warranty phase is not a solid design in my eyes and 
those of my clients. Should it ever happen that a client wanted me to do 
that (never has so far) I'd likely turn down the assignment.


>                                                             ... But,
> realistically, you KNOW that this will result in the $200 product being
> shit-canned in 2-3 years (of normal use).
>

Which is why I would not design it. They'd have to find someone else.


> Have you cut a corner?  Have you achieved perfection?  Or, is it someone
> else's "problem"/concern cuz that's what they asked for?
>

It won't happen at this here desk.

-- 
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

Back to sci.electronics.design | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

OT: in favour of gradualism bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-03 03:39 -0800
  Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Winfield Hill <hill@rowland.harvard.edu> - 2017-02-03 04:21 -0800
    Re: OT: in favour of gradualism bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-03 04:57 -0800
      Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2017-02-03 11:38 -0600
        Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-02-04 07:21 -0800
          Re: OT: in favour of gradualism krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-04 10:42 -0500
            Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-02-04 08:15 -0800
              Re: OT: in favour of gradualism krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-04 11:36 -0500
                Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-02-04 09:40 -0800
                Re: OT: in favour of gradualism krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-04 13:52 -0500
                Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-02-04 11:50 -0800
                Re: OT: in favour of gradualism krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-04 20:31 -0500
            Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2017-02-04 18:04 -0600
              Re: OT: in favour of gradualism krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-04 20:33 -0500
    Re: OT: in favour of gradualism jurb6006@gmail.com - 2017-02-03 05:00 -0800
      Re: OT: in favour of gradualism bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-03 09:03 -0800
    Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-03 09:35 -0700
      Re: OT: in favour of gradualism bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-03 09:10 -0800
      Re: OT: in favour of gradualism tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-02-03 17:18 -0800
      Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-02-04 07:24 -0800
        Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-04 12:34 -0700
          Re: OT: in favour of gradualism tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-02-04 12:04 -0800
          Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-02-04 12:07 -0800
            Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-04 14:15 -0700
              Re: OT: in favour of gradualism John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-04 14:02 -0800
                Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-04 15:19 -0700
                Re: OT: in favour of gradualism "tom" <tmiller11147@verizon.net> - 2017-02-04 17:36 -0500
                Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-04 15:46 -0700
                Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-02-04 14:56 -0800
                Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-04 16:17 -0700
                Re: OT: in favour of gradualism "tom" <tmiller11147@verizon.net> - 2017-02-04 18:22 -0500
                Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-04 16:55 -0700
                Re: OT: in favour of gradualism John Robertson <spam@flippers.com> - 2017-02-04 18:22 -0800
                Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-04 21:26 -0700
                Re: OT: in favour of gradualism "tom" <tmiller11147@verizon.net> - 2017-02-04 17:35 -0500
                Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-04 15:44 -0700
                Re: OT: in favour of gradualism "dcaster@krl.org" <dcaster@krl.org> - 2017-02-04 17:42 -0800
                Re: OT: in favour of gradualism krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-04 20:56 -0500
              Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-02-05 08:14 -0800
                Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-05 11:56 -0700
                Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-02-06 14:35 -0800
                Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-06 16:43 -0700
                Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-02-06 17:12 -0800
                Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-06 18:59 -0700
                Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-02-07 07:40 -0800
                Re: OT: in favour of gradualism tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-02-07 12:16 -0800
                Re: OT: in favour of gradualism krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-06 21:11 -0500
                Re: OT: in favour of gradualism tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-02-05 12:43 -0800
          Re: OT: in favour of gradualism krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-04 20:42 -0500
      Re: OT: in favour of gradualism John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-04 10:05 -0800
        Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-02-04 10:24 -0800
        Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-04 12:45 -0700
          Re: OT: in favour of gradualism "dcaster@krl.org" <dcaster@krl.org> - 2017-02-04 17:54 -0800
            Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-04 21:45 -0700

csiph-web