Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.electronics.design > #446489
| From | Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.electronics.design |
| Subject | Re: OT: in favour of gradualism |
| Date | 2017-02-06 14:35 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <efsc1dFhr3bU1@mid.individual.net> (permalink) |
| References | (4 earlier) <o75a8v$hia$1@dont-email.me> <efmqjcFe61gU1@mid.individual.net> <o75g67$6t9$1@dont-email.me> <efp19qFrf1eU1@mid.individual.net> <o77se1$40v$1@dont-email.me> |
On 2017-02-05 10:56, Don Y wrote:
> On 2/5/2017 9:14 AM, Joerg wrote:
[...]
>>> 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've worked at places where annual bonuses exceeded your base pay.
> Money is not a motivator.
WHAT? I assume you are kidding. Money is the biggest motivator for most
people. If they work their tails off and this results in them being able
to afford a Corvette or a fancy vacation they will be happy like fish in
the water. So will be their spouses and that's what really matters.
Well, maybe not so much in the case of the Corvette or the 49ers season
tickets :-)
> ... Lack of money can demotivate but dangling
> a carrot doesn't tend to produce results.
>
I was a manager with lots of people and P&L responsibility. Monetary
rewards do produce results, big time.
> The colleagues with shich I've spent many "late nights" were invariably NOT
> motivated by financial issues -- rewards OR penalties. But, rather, a
> genuine interest in the problem they had before them. The knowledge that
> "leaving work" at this time would still have their minds fully engaged with
> the problem -- so, why "leave work"?
>
Yes, there are idealists and often I am like that myself. However, IME
this will not keep up for long unless there is commensurate reward.
>>>>> 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.
>
> Having lived with the turmoils of small companies not being able to
> meet payroll, buy needed equipment, get VC funding, etc. I opted for a
> "large, well established firm". As I'd not, prior to that, encountered
> the 9-to-5 mentality, I wasn't prepared for it. I naively thought
> ALL engineers were driven by the challenges they were tackling and
> it didn't occur to me that some/many would just see it as a job:
> "The prototype will STILL be here Monday morning. No need to
> keep working on it, tonight..."
>
I could have warned you :-)
But not all large corp engineers are like that.
>>> 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.
>
> There's a gulf between "routine" and "exception". I've frequently worked
> with crews where individuals will get up and "excuse" themselves:
> "Sorry, guys, my wife is expecting me for dinner..."
> No one grumbling that he's "bailing out" on them, etc.
>
> Likewise, been the sole person in a facility in the wee hours of
> the morning and find a colleague wandering in to ALSO work on the
> project:
> "Gee, I didn't expect to find you here, Don..."
>
> But, there are others that I would never expect to be apologetic (in the
> first
> case) or surprised (in the second) as the idea of working on "work" any
> time "after hours" is anathema to them.
>
Yes, plenty of those around. I once even encountered an upper level
manager like this. We had a large important meeting, were surprisingly
narrowing in on the potential root cause of an issue. At exactly
seventeenhundred hours this guy looked at his watch and said "Well,
guys, it's 5pm, so let's all reconvene tomorrow". I could not believe 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.
>
> When you have a manufacturing facility tied to your engineering efforts,
> you see the faces of the people that will be "idled" (laid off) when you
> miss a deadline. Management thinks this is a means of coercing folks
> to meet those deadlines; responsible engineers see it as a means of
> ensuring they only *commit* to realistic deadlines.
>
> The Venn diagram isn't guaranteed to show an intersection of those
> event spaces! :>
>
Ultimately that will lead to burn-out and corporate failure.
>>> 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 started my business with that approach -- on the advice of others.
> Then, realized it let clients drag projects out far longer than *I*
> was interested (I'm not eager to dig ditches regardless of the pay!)
>
> So, I take the exact opposite approach: fixed cost for everything.
> *But*, that means the project's extents are completely defined
> before hand! If *you* don't know what you want (and expect me to
> design N different concepts so you can see WHY you don't like
> them), then I surely don't want to be your entertainment.
>
That is next to impossible for 70% of my projects. They are usually
cutting edge stuff. New concepts where it is impossible to see whether
an idea might work and how much it'll take to make a go of it. The other
30% or so of projects are of the kind "Well, we blew EMC, big time, no
idea why, can you fix that?".
This is why I advise everyone working in high tech not to go fixed bid.
> I want a known exit from a project -- so I can move on to something else.
> Diversity being far more important than a "continuous paycheck" from
> an endless project!
>
I have plenty of diversity, all on a strict time and materials basis.
> This criteria also tends to filter out the clients that are "insecure";
> that want someone to hold their hands while they try to make up their
> minds.
>
> And, lets clients nibble at a problem instead of signing a blank check
> and wondering where it will lead:
> "We've spent $X and have nothing to show for it!"
> "Sure you do! All of those approaches that you spent money reifying
> and then ruled out! Had you done that on paper -- or in your own
> mind -- then you wouldn't have spent the $X and wasted all of those
> hours of MY LIFE!"
>
Seems you and I have completely opposite business philosophies. I like
that sizzle of the unknown. So do my clients.
>>> 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.
>
> "If you don't like standing in shit, then you shouldn't be a plumber"
>
That's how it is. But you also should expect a sizeable reward for the
plumber after he made it go away.
>>> 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
>
> There's a difference between "having an emergency" and "poor planning".
> We accept the term "emergency" far too willingly. Like "having an
> accident" and relying on the interpretation that it was "unexpected"
> vs. "by chance".
>
> Failing to plan for Y2K isn't an emergency. Its just a defect in your
> planning process!
>
As the bumper stickers and T-shirts from Forrest Gump say, "S..t
happens". Nobody has a perfect planning process. Some things simply
can't be planned. The commies thought you can plan just about everything
and they fail with it every single time.
>> 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.
>
> So, if the MD sends the patient home with a narcotic and the pain vanishes,
> has he achieved perfection? Despite the fact that the underlying cause
> hasn't been addressed?
>
If the pain never comes back there wasn't a deeper underlying cause and
then this was perfection. I would expect at least a decent x-ray
diagnosis to make sure. Yet many times that did not happen.
> If the docotr makes a best-guess assessment that the patient will likely
> die from X when he is 78 years old and his nominal life expectancy is 75,
> then is it acceptable to NOT treat X?
>
It can be. This is a different topic though and something I witnessed
recently. Often one has to weigh between the risk of dying from the
anesthesia against that from the disease itself.
>>> 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.
>
> Why? A client can opt to maximize their profit at the expense of their
> reputation (People's Electronic Device Manufacturer #24566). To do so,
> model "in warranty" replacements (and their costs) vs. the cost to
> provide a QUALITY product that will continue to operate far beyond the
> warranty period.
>
I do not want to be associated in any way with such shady business
behavior. Therefore, if I know about it I would decline. My reputation
is not negotiable.
> Is the purchaser likely to buy a SECOND unit -- even if the first NEVER
> FAILS?
Sure, happens all the time. When I worked in med tech many doctors would
regularly order our newest machine. Because it had new valuable
features. There also is wear and tear. Example: Aircraft are generally
expected to last 30 years no matter what the warranty says. Really good
ones last more than twice as long. Yet there comes a point were normal
wear and tear of parts makes an airline buy a new machine. This is what
durable quality products look like and what they can do despite abuse:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwIQk8vuN1M
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8tqCrMWCQE
Then there is word of mouth. Who says the original purchaser is the only
game in town? When I bought an SUV I first researched thoroughly.
Quality was paramount and that's what I got. 20 years and counting. Not
even the dome light bulb has dared to burn out. No, I obviously did not
buy another one and might not have to for another 20 years. However,
several others have purchased vehicles from that manufacturer
(Mitsubishi) upon my advice. Oh, and the main reason why I had this
vehicle on my short list in the first place was that we once had a house
with a Mitsubishi heat pump that turned out to be of cast-iron
reliability. _That_ is what happens when a product never fails.
> If not, then what value to increasing the consumer's impression of the
> product
> or its manufacturer -- as offset by the added costs (lost profits) of
> making
> that better device?
>
You have to make a new device with additional other or enhanced
features. If a company can't provide that sort of innovation they should
shut down.
> How many people bought ANOTHER DTV decoder because they were so satisfied
> with the first one they purchased? How many people had BOTH of the DTV
> converters that they purchased (subsidized) *fail* in short order?
> How many of the DTV manufacturers are still making DTV converters and
> expecting to tap into that market?
>
Nobody needs a DTV decoder, it's built into the TV. We bought several
recorders over the years. Usually not because they failed but because
they had new features. Same for computers. I would be mighty miffed if
they all failed shortly after warranty. So I buy from a companies
(mostly Dell) where that does not happen. Those things live forever but
after a number of years one wants faster LTSpice performance and whatnot.
> There are lots of markets where reputation means little and cost is king.
> When there are no regulatory agencies involved, it is stunning how many
> corners will/can be cut in crafting products!
>
I know. That is why there are several companies on my black list. They
will never see another red cent from me or from a lot of
relatives/friends/neighbors as long as I live. That will likely be many
decades to come.
>>> ... 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.
>
> A 9-to-5 engineer? Or, someone who is REALLY CLEVER at figuring out how to
> design RIGHT to the margins?? :>
>
That is not clever, that is IMO evil.
[...]
--
Regards, Joerg
http://www.analogconsultants.com/
Back to sci.electronics.design | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll 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