Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.electronics.design > #445922 > unrolled thread
| Started by | bill.sloman@ieee.org |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-02-03 03:39 -0800 |
| Last post | 2017-02-04 21:45 -0700 |
| Articles | 14 on this page of 54 — 13 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.electronics.design
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
Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]
| From | Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-06 14:35 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <efsc1dFhr3bU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #446314 |
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 $200 product being
>>> shit-canned in 2-3 years (of normal use).
>>
>> Which is why I would not design it. They'd have to find someone else.
>
> A 9-to-5 engineer? Or, someone who is REALLY CLEVER at figuring out how to
> design RIGHT to the margins?? :>
>
That is not clever, that is IMO evil.
[...]
--
Regards, Joerg
http://www.analogconsultants.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-06 16:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <o7b1kb$l0g$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #446489 |
On 2/6/2017 3:35 PM, Joerg wrote:
> 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 :-)
<https://hbr.org/2013/04/does-money-really-affect-motiv>
"These results have important implications for management: if we want
an engaged workforce, money is clearly not the answer. In fact, if we
want employees to be happy with their pay, money is not the answer. In
a nutshell: money does not buy engagement."
A good manager/employr wants to select employees that are intrinsically
motivated. A *deficiency* in pay can demotivate far more than a surplus
can motivate.
[I'll not waste time arguing the point. There's been a LOT of research
on the subject. Check it out...]
>> ... 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.
Then you probably had the wrong sorts of employees! Only working if externally
rewarded instead of working for the reward of the work itself! Makes you
wonder what sort of pride of ownership was involved (if they aren't paid
for the QUALITY of their work, do they still include quality in their results?)
>> 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.
People find "reward" in many different ways. Assuming that money is
the be all to end all is naive.
If I paid you your going rate -- plus 50% -- and told you I wanted
you to dig ditches for 10 hours a day, would you do it? Just think
of how handsomely you are being rewarded for a MENIAL TASK! You'd be
a fool NOT to want to work *20* hours a day, right?
>> 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 :-)
I started my (9-to-5) career amid lots of small startups. Delightful
challenges, extremely bright people -- but, often, tenuous financial
situations. There's a balance between "challenge" and "security".
As my career progressed, security became less important (nest egg,
etc) so challenge regains its appeal. I have no hesitation turning down
work that I'm *expert* at out of sheer anticipated boredom: been there,
done that, T-shirt...
OTOH, regularly take on interesting challenges /pro bono/ simply for
the OPPORTUNITY to try something new and exciting! To LEARN something.
> But not all large corp engineers are like that.
I've only a few "big corporation" experiences to draw on. All were
disappointing (even as a contractor). A lack of passion and interest
seemed common. And, lots of silly overhead (meetings, design by
committee, risk aversion, etc.)
>> 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.
Exactly. I can imagine it coming from a *manager* -- whose interests
have passed beyond technical areas (if he ever WAS an engineer).
But, to encounter it in engineers was something that I'd never considered
"likely". Sort of like hitting PAUSE on the DVD player just before the
villain is revealed: "We'll pick up, again, next week..."
>> 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.
Yes. Externalities that you've not factored into your business plan.
And, can't control nor predict.
This is the argument that "big companies" have used to explain why they
*don't* expect "heroics" from their employees.
[I had one client many years/decades ago who was amazingly astute!
I wish I'd engaged him *more* as he had lots of pearls of wisdom
from which I undoubtedly could have benefitted]
>>> 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?".
Most of my work is proof of concept. So, largely uncharted waters.
OTOH, I don't have to "dot the i's and cross the t's" for a manufacturable
product.
So, its relatively easy to identify bite-sized chunks that are essential
to determining the viability of the idea WITHOUT having to nail down
all the operational and manufacturing details. (let someone else worry
about that; I want to explore the novelty aspects!)
> 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.
Ever worked on controlling an industrial process in real time?
Analyzed the formulation of tablets? Computer peripherals? Video
games? Marking engines? Gasoline vending pumps? Electronic door
locks? Blood assay kit? KWHr meters? Inventory control systems?
"Form" processing?
Virtually every project I've undertaken has been in a different
industry -- regarding learning new lexicons, regulations, "best
practices/cGMP's", etc. The common thread is "hardware/software"
and little more. The appeal is learning how to apply experiences
from other application domains to the current, apparently different
one. And, taking knowledge from that applcation domain to apply
to the next one -- or the one after that.
>> 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 view the hours of my life as a scarce resource. I jealously guard how they
are "spent". I can always get more money but can't always get more *time*!
So, I am loathe to commit to open-ended projects. Esp if that is a result
of someone not thinking about their ultimate goals. "Call me when you
have a good idea of where you ant to go with this..."
>>>> 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.
But there are many things that CAN be foreseen. E.g., y2038 is just around
the corner. Wanna bet it comes as a BIG SURPRISE?? :>
My FinL used to claim that it was just as easy to keep the top half of the
(gas) tank full as the bottom -- a commentary on folks who always seem to
be running out of gas yet never filling up.
Does postponing that action reward you in some way? If you're going to drive
the same number of miles, regardless, then why avoid the inevitable? Plan
for it *now* -- instead of finding yourself snowed in and unable to get
fuel as most stations are closed!
>> 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.
Yup. OTOH, if *you* die as a result of not having a procedure, you might
have a different opinion as to the relative risks involved! :>
>>>> 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.
How do you know that is their intent?
I designed an autopilot for a boat ~40 years ago. You gave the autopilot
lat-lon coordinates and it got you to that location on the globe (LORAN).
A traditional autopilot (of that era) would just maintain a general heading
and never compensate for drift (cross track error).
Given that mine would "get you where you wanted to go", there was a
temptation to just set it and forget it -- head below decks for a
little nap, or to prep a meal, or prep your lobster pots, etc.
[As you could plot a complex series of way-points, you could conceivably
leave the boat to drive itself for hundreds of miles, navigating
several course corrections along the way!]
I argued for some sort of dead-man's switch to ensure the sipper/pilot
would be attentive while the device was in use. Tie it in to a kill
switch or an alarm or...
Boss was far more realistic: they'll defeat anything we try to implement.
Does that absolve me from any (moral) responsibility?
>> 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.
Its built into *new* TV's! We don't watch broadcast TV so see no need to
upgrade our "oversized DVD monitor". We keep a DTV decoder for the few
times we want to watch the local news (vs. check online). Why buy a new
TV just to get a "free DTV decoder" -- esp when the new TV doesn't have an
interactive program guide?
> 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.
The problem is that you (or I) are just blips in their sales. The
average joes are what they use to drive their pricing, offerings, etc.
*Pay* to get a (printed) bank statement? You've got to be kidding!
>>>> ... 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.
But, they were able to accurately target their stated reliability goal!
I'd be hard pressed to even know how to BEGIN to cut things that close!
Surely, a great deal of skill and experience involved...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-06 17:12 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <efsl81FjgrnU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #446507 |
On 2017-02-06 15:43, Don Y wrote:
> On 2/6/2017 3:35 PM, Joerg wrote:
>> 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 :-)
>
> <https://hbr.org/2013/04/does-money-really-affect-motiv>
>
> "These results have important implications for management: if we want
> an engaged workforce, money is clearly not the answer. In fact, if we
> want employees to be happy with their pay, money is not the answer. In
> a nutshell: money does not buy engagement."
>
> A good manager/employr wants to select employees that are intrinsically
> motivated. A *deficiency* in pay can demotivate far more than a surplus
> can motivate.
>
> [I'll not waste time arguing the point. There's been a LOT of research
> on the subject. Check it out...]
>
Quote from your link "and that financial rewards can ultimately depress
or "crowd out" intrinsic goals"
ROFL! Do you seriously believe this stuff?
>>> ... 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.
>
> Then you probably had the wrong sorts of employees! Only working if
> externally
> rewarded instead of working for the reward of the work itself! Makes you
> wonder what sort of pride of ownership was involved (if they aren't paid
> for the QUALITY of their work, do they still include quality in their
> results?)
>
No, they were top notch people. We sometimes had discussions about
incentives which usually included employees. The consensus was always
the same: "If you want to really reward us don't use all sorts of gizmos
or free this, that and the other thing. Just put a check in our hands".
>>> 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.
>
> People find "reward" in many different ways. Assuming that money is
> the be all to end all is naive.
>
Never heard the country song about it? "...but it buys me a truck, it
buys me a boat ..."
> If I paid you your going rate -- plus 50% -- and told you I wanted
> you to dig ditches for 10 hours a day, would you do it?
Yes, Sir! It's very good excercise and I'd even get paid for it.
> ... Just think
> of how handsomely you are being rewarded for a MENIAL TASK! You'd be
> a fool NOT to want to work *20* hours a day, right?
>
Right. Except I want time to do volunteering which offers zero income
and not even mileage reimbursement, just the way I want it to be.
>>> 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 :-)
>
> I started my (9-to-5) career amid lots of small startups. Delightful
> challenges, extremely bright people -- but, often, tenuous financial
> situations. There's a balance between "challenge" and "security".
>
> As my career progressed, security became less important (nest egg,
> etc) so challenge regains its appeal. I have no hesitation turning down
> work that I'm *expert* at out of sheer anticipated boredom: been there,
> done that, T-shirt...
>
> OTOH, regularly take on interesting challenges /pro bono/ simply for
> the OPPORTUNITY to try something new and exciting! To LEARN something.
>
I do mentoring at times plus ministry work. All on a zero-Dollar basis.
I am a believer in giving back to society but that's got nothing to do
with regular work.
Just this morning I helped an engineer get on his feet, pro bono because
he was struggling with high voltage stuff. He had never done it before.
>> But not all large corp engineers are like that.
>
> I've only a few "big corporation" experiences to draw on. All were
> disappointing (even as a contractor). A lack of passion and interest
> seemed common. And, lots of silly overhead (meetings, design by
> committee, risk aversion, etc.)
>
Most big companies seem to be like that but not all. I found a handful
of interesting ones with five- and six-digit employee numbers.
>>> 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.
>
> Exactly. I can imagine it coming from a *manager* -- whose interests
> have passed beyond technical areas (if he ever WAS an engineer).
>
He did have some supposedly prestigious degree. Not that I give anything
about ivy league schools even though I came from one.
> But, to encounter it in engineers was something that I'd never considered
> "likely". Sort of like hitting PAUSE on the DVD player just before the
> villain is revealed: "We'll pick up, again, next week..."
>
I have seen it in many engineers but usually only big corp and even more
so government.
[...]
>>>> 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?".
>
> Most of my work is proof of concept. So, largely uncharted waters.
> OTOH, I don't have to "dot the i's and cross the t's" for a manufacturable
> product.
>
Most of us do. My results usually have to be completely production-ready
because as you mentioned before, sometimes I am also the whole EE
department for a client. Maybe except for software.
> So, its relatively easy to identify bite-sized chunks that are essential
> to determining the viability of the idea WITHOUT having to nail down
> all the operational and manufacturing details. (let someone else worry
> about that; I want to explore the novelty aspects!)
>
Many projects require both. Like when you want to press some parts into
service that were not meant to this purpose. I have to go from
white-sheet idea all the way to 10 field-tested prototypes.
>> 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.
>
> Ever worked on controlling an industrial process in real time?
> Analyzed the formulation of tablets? Computer peripherals? Video
> games? Marking engines? Gasoline vending pumps? Electronic door
> locks? Blood assay kit? KWHr meters? Inventory control systems?
> "Form" processing?
>
Yes, but other gear. Medical devices, oil and gas pumping, aircraft
electronics, spacecraft parts, agricultural mesh networking, fluid
control, vehicle electronics, and so on. It pretty much changes every day.
> Virtually every project I've undertaken has been in a different
> industry -- regarding learning new lexicons, regulations, "best
> practices/cGMP's", etc. The common thread is "hardware/software"
> and little more. The appeal is learning how to apply experiences
> from other application domains to the current, apparently different
> one. And, taking knowledge from that applcation domain to apply
> to the next one -- or the one after that.
>
Same here.
>>> 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 view the hours of my life as a scarce resource. I jealously guard how
> they
> are "spent". I can always get more money but can't always get more *time*!
>
Stay fit, that buys you more time. I strictly adhere to certain physical
activities. Whack my own firewood, at least 100 miles on a bike each
week. A real one, not some stationary deal. Lots of walking. Absolutely
positively no fast food, zero. All home-cooked. Even the beer we drink
is home-made.
> So, I am loathe to commit to open-ended projects. Esp if that is a result
> of someone not thinking about their ultimate goals. "Call me when you
> have a good idea of where you ant to go with this..."
>
Most of mine are fairly open-ended. It's not so much lack of foresight
but the fact that nobdoy has ever done it before. So you got to test,
test, redesign, test again et cetera.
>>>>> 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.
>
> But there are many things that CAN be foreseen. E.g., y2038 is just around
> the corner. Wanna bet it comes as a BIG SURPRISE?? :>
>
Simple things like that, yes, agree. But you cannot completely plan a
space shuttle or an intravascular ultrasound scanner this way.
> My FinL used to claim that it was just as easy to keep the top half of the
> (gas) tank full as the bottom -- a commentary on folks who always seem to
> be running out of gas yet never filling up.
>
Not sure what a FinL is but I have never run out of gas. I do know a
high level guy who frequently did though. I am a strong believer in
checklists even if they are just mental. Tires, gas, lights, it's all on
there. Every ride.
> Does postponing that action reward you in some way? If you're going to
> drive
> the same number of miles, regardless, then why avoid the inevitable? Plan
> for it *now* -- instead of finding yourself snowed in and unable to get
> fuel as most stations are closed!
>
Some things you can plan, some you can't.
>>> 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.
>
> Yup. OTOH, if *you* die as a result of not having a procedure, you might
> have a different opinion as to the relative risks involved! :>
>
This is why bit is important that someone knows your wishes in case you
can't decide for yourself anymore.
>>>>> 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.
>
> How do you know that is their intent?
>
It usually becomes rather obvious in very early discussions.
> I designed an autopilot for a boat ~40 years ago. You gave the autopilot
> lat-lon coordinates and it got you to that location on the globe (LORAN).
> A traditional autopilot (of that era) would just maintain a general heading
> and never compensate for drift (cross track error).
>
> Given that mine would "get you where you wanted to go", there was a
> temptation to just set it and forget it -- head below decks for a
> little nap, or to prep a meal, or prep your lobster pots, etc.
>
> [As you could plot a complex series of way-points, you could conceivably
> leave the boat to drive itself for hundreds of miles, navigating
> several course corrections along the way!]
>
> I argued for some sort of dead-man's switch to ensure the sipper/pilot
> would be attentive while the device was in use. Tie it in to a kill
> switch or an alarm or...
>
> Boss was far more realistic: they'll defeat anything we try to implement.
>
> Does that absolve me from any (moral) responsibility?
>
No, and that's got nothing to do with quality.
In this case I would make it known in writing that I recommended a
dead-man switch. In my consulting agreement there is also an
indemnification clause. This needs to be signed or they'll have to find
another consultant.
>>> 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.
>
> Its built into *new* TV's! We don't watch broadcast TV so see no need to
> upgrade our "oversized DVD monitor". We keep a DTV decoder for the few
> times we want to watch the local news (vs. check online). Why buy a new
> TV just to get a "free DTV decoder" -- esp when the new TV doesn't have an
> interactive program guide?
>
TV has become fairly useless ever since they switched to digital (and I
predicted that). It pixelates out, loses audio a lot. Often we just give
up and now we have an Android box to watch stuff via Internet. Like an
old German movie from 1953 yesterday that you can't even rent anywhere
anymore.
>> 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.
>
> The problem is that you (or I) are just blips in their sales. The
> average joes are what they use to drive their pricing, offerings, etc.
> *Pay* to get a (printed) bank statement? You've got to be kidding!
>
It's more powerful than you think except that the average Joe is much
more blunt than we are. Instead of explaining the details he'll just say
"Oh, the XYZ brand is all crap, don't ever buy that". And then most of
the others around the beer table don't buy that.
>>>>> ... But,
>>>>> realistically, you KNOW that this will result in the $200 product
>>>>> being
>>>>> shit-canned in 2-3 years (of normal use).
>>>>
>>>> Which is why I would not design it. They'd have to find someone else.
>>>
>>> A 9-to-5 engineer? Or, someone who is REALLY CLEVER at figuring out
>>> how to
>>> design RIGHT to the margins?? :>
>>
>> That is not clever, that is IMO evil.
>
> But, they were able to accurately target their stated reliability goal!
> I'd be hard pressed to even know how to BEGIN to cut things that close!
> Surely, a great deal of skill and experience involved...
>
That's almost the same as saying that Billy the Kid was a great man
because of his super marksmanship. Never mind all the folks he killed
and all the women he made widows.
--
Regards, Joerg
http://www.analogconsultants.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-06 18:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <o7b9jc$aij$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #446550 |
>>>>>> 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 :-)
>>
>> <https://hbr.org/2013/04/does-money-really-affect-motiv>
>>
>> "These results have important implications for management: if we want
>> an engaged workforce, money is clearly not the answer. In fact, if we
>> want employees to be happy with their pay, money is not the answer. In
>> a nutshell: money does not buy engagement."
>>
>> A good manager/employr wants to select employees that are intrinsically
>> motivated. A *deficiency* in pay can demotivate far more than a surplus
>> can motivate.
>>
>> [I'll not waste time arguing the point. There's been a LOT of research
>> on the subject. Check it out...]
>
> Quote from your link "and that financial rewards can ultimately depress or
> "crowd out" intrinsic goals"
>
> ROFL! Do you seriously believe this stuff?
Yes! I've seen money lead to WORSE corporate performance as folks
became LESS cooperative -- each trying to maximize their share of
the annual-bonus-pie!
In one case, I *volunteered* what I considered to be a great idea to
a fellow employee and he rejected it outright -- prefering his
far inferior implementation lest he have to explain *me* as the
source for the better idea!
>> If I paid you your going rate -- plus 50% -- and told you I wanted
>> you to dig ditches for 10 hours a day, would you do it?
>
> Yes, Sir! It's very good excercise and I'd even get paid for it.
Ready to sign up for a 20 year hitch? Or, will you just milk it
for short term gains and leave the ditch-digger-corp high and dry
when you've sated your immediate goals?
>> ... Just think
>> of how handsomely you are being rewarded for a MENIAL TASK! You'd be
>> a fool NOT to want to work *20* hours a day, right?
>
> Right. Except I want time to do volunteering which offers zero income and not
> even mileage reimbursement, just the way I want it to be.
Ah, but you can make a cash donation to the organization and they can
HIRE someone at a much lower rate to do the things that YOU would have done!
>>>> 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 :-)
>>
>> I started my (9-to-5) career amid lots of small startups. Delightful
>> challenges, extremely bright people -- but, often, tenuous financial
>> situations. There's a balance between "challenge" and "security".
>>
>> As my career progressed, security became less important (nest egg,
>> etc) so challenge regains its appeal. I have no hesitation turning down
>> work that I'm *expert* at out of sheer anticipated boredom: been there,
>> done that, T-shirt...
>>
>> OTOH, regularly take on interesting challenges /pro bono/ simply for
>> the OPPORTUNITY to try something new and exciting! To LEARN something.
>
> I do mentoring at times plus ministry work. All on a zero-Dollar basis. I am a
> believer in giving back to society but that's got nothing to do with regular work.
>
> Just this morning I helped an engineer get on his feet, pro bono because he was
> struggling with high voltage stuff. He had never done it before.
I design 6-figure "systems" that folks can't afford to have custom designed
for their needs. This usually involves a fair bit of time trying to
ascertain their needs, how they currently approach the problem(s) and
possible BETTER ways to get to the desired end-state.
Once I've finished observing, I can go off and put together the hardware (from
donor sources) and write the software to make it all work.
They get a (labor saving) system. I get exposure to a new application domain
and the technology that *I* have selected to address it.
(and, of course, I own the IP involved)
>>>>> 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?".
>>
>> Most of my work is proof of concept. So, largely uncharted waters.
>> OTOH, I don't have to "dot the i's and cross the t's" for a manufacturable
>> product.
>
> Most of us do. My results usually have to be completely production-ready
> because as you mentioned before, sometimes I am also the whole EE department
> for a client. Maybe except for software.
I get a design concept to a point where they can chase down VC funding.
Or, where they can hire a grunt to iron out the details of an implementation.
This is very cost-effective for them because they don't pay my rates to
do mundane things (find the best source for a particular component;
tweek the colors on the screen; convert the specification into a user manual;
etc.) AND don't have to commit to a full project if, for example, the
aspects that I'm developing don't pan out. Or, if a mechanism proves
to costly to build; etc.
For me, I am relieved of the cruft part of the job. And, end up with less
"invested" (emotionally) if the entire project folds due to some aspect
that can't be met (e.g., funding).
The ticklish part is when the client wants you to "train" their recent hire.
"Sorry, YOU are responsible for hiring capable employees. My documentation
speaks for my design so he shouldn't need anything beyond that!"
(No, I'm NOT really interested in the problems he encounters getting from
concept to production -- I've got my own NEW challenges to address!)
I frequently hear comments like:
"It took me a while to figure out HOW YOU DO THINGS but, once I did,
everything was obvious!"
Note he's commenting on my PROCESS, not my SOLUTION!
>> So, its relatively easy to identify bite-sized chunks that are essential
>> to determining the viability of the idea WITHOUT having to nail down
>> all the operational and manufacturing details. (let someone else worry
>> about that; I want to explore the novelty aspects!)
>
> Many projects require both. Like when you want to press some parts into service
> that were not meant to this purpose. I have to go from white-sheet idea all the
> way to 10 field-tested prototypes.
I build *a* prototype (sometimes 3 if I can get three sets of boards at
one shot AND there aren't three "mechanisms" needed to make them all
operational) and use it to illustrate/prove the concept. Then, the
client can go off and play "what if" games on his own time without
me having to sit idling (I move on to some other project/client).
>>>> 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 view the hours of my life as a scarce resource. I jealously guard how they
>> are "spent". I can always get more money but can't always get more *time*!
>
> Stay fit, that buys you more time. I strictly adhere to certain physical
> activities. Whack my own firewood, at least 100 miles on a bike each week. A
> real one, not some stationary deal. Lots of walking. Absolutely positively no
> fast food, zero. All home-cooked. Even the beer we drink is home-made.
No beer/alcohol. No sweets (excepting ice cream, occasionally). Decaf
tea. No soda. Very little red meat (SWMBO doesn't like it). No drugs
(OTC/Rx/recreational). No tobacco. 28miles/7 hours walking each week
plus 2 hours yard work (installing a subterranean 2000G cistern without
benefit of a backhoe).
My biggest (controllable) risk-factor is regularity of eating (I tend
to forget to eat) and piss-poor sleep-wake cycle (but, there is ALWAYS
something more interesting to do than SLEEP! :< )
>> So, I am loathe to commit to open-ended projects. Esp if that is a result
>> of someone not thinking about their ultimate goals. "Call me when you
>> have a good idea of where you ant to go with this..."
>
> Most of mine are fairly open-ended. It's not so much lack of foresight but the
> fact that nobdoy has ever done it before. So you got to test, test, redesign,
> test again et cetera.
I make the first (or second) pass at a design (sometimes someone has
hacked up the barest "concept" or patent proof before I see it) and
then leave others to fill in the detail. I make it pretty clear, up front,
that I'm not here for the long haul. So, nailing down ALL of the tasks
for which I will be responsible lets clients plan on when I'll be
making my exit. And, if smart, arranging for some overlap with my
successor(s).
>> My FinL used to claim that it was just as easy to keep the top half of the
>> (gas) tank full as the bottom -- a commentary on folks who always seem to
>> be running out of gas yet never filling up.
Father-in-Law
> Not sure what a FinL is but I have never run out of gas.
Nor I. OTOH, his kids seemed to like to leave HIM with an empty tank
(of course, you can understand why! :> )
>>>> 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.
>>
>> Yup. OTOH, if *you* die as a result of not having a procedure, you might
>> have a different opinion as to the relative risks involved! :>
>
> This is why bit is important that someone knows your wishes in case you can't
> decide for yourself anymore.
What's MORE important is that you have organizations and providers who
will HONOR your wishes -- and not resort to "religious objections" to justify
imposing THEIR wishes on you and your heirs!
>>>> 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.
>>
>> How do you know that is their intent?
>
> It usually becomes rather obvious in very early discussions.
I designed a product with really tight cost pressures -- only to
later "discover" that the "price" was 20X my DM+DL *and* they
were GIVEN AWAY ("toilet paper dispensers"). Sure, there is
some rationale in keeping the cost low esp if you are using
them as loss-leaders. But, how much calendar time could have been
salvaged had they simply made this known in the beginning and
trusted us "not to be sloppy" with our costs?
>>>> 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.
>>
>> Its built into *new* TV's! We don't watch broadcast TV so see no need to
>> upgrade our "oversized DVD monitor". We keep a DTV decoder for the few
>> times we want to watch the local news (vs. check online). Why buy a new
>> TV just to get a "free DTV decoder" -- esp when the new TV doesn't have an
>> interactive program guide?
>
> TV has become fairly useless ever since they switched to digital (and I
> predicted that). It pixelates out, loses audio a lot. Often we just give up and
> now we have an Android box to watch stuff via Internet. Like an old German
> movie from 1953 yesterday that you can't even rent anywhere anymore.
We've never been big "TV consumers". Given the choice between sleep
and TV, sleep would win -- and, you can see (above) that *it* usually
gets short-changed.
OTOH, I "watch" a movie (DVD) nearly every night while working.
(taking 2 hours out of my day to actually sit in front of the TV
would be a colossal waste!)
>>>>>> 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.
>>
>> But, they were able to accurately target their stated reliability goal!
>> I'd be hard pressed to even know how to BEGIN to cut things that close!
>> Surely, a great deal of skill and experience involved...
>
> That's almost the same as saying that Billy the Kid was a great man because of
> his super marksmanship. Never mind all the folks he killed and all the women he
> made widows.
The same guy who can get a product to fail just outside its warranty
window is probably also the best guy to get a product to last forever!
The gun isn't the villain...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-07 07:40 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <efu83eFt5rjU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #446565 |
On 2017-02-06 17:59, Don Y 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 :-)
>>>
>>> <https://hbr.org/2013/04/does-money-really-affect-motiv>
>>>
>>> "These results have important implications for management: if we want
>>> an engaged workforce, money is clearly not the answer. In fact, if we
>>> want employees to be happy with their pay, money is not the answer. In
>>> a nutshell: money does not buy engagement."
>>>
>>> A good manager/employr wants to select employees that are intrinsically
>>> motivated. A *deficiency* in pay can demotivate far more than a surplus
>>> can motivate.
>>>
>>> [I'll not waste time arguing the point. There's been a LOT of research
>>> on the subject. Check it out...]
>>
>> Quote from your link "and that financial rewards can ultimately
>> depress or
>> "crowd out" intrinsic goals"
>>
>> ROFL! Do you seriously believe this stuff?
>
> Yes! I've seen money lead to WORSE corporate performance as folks
> became LESS cooperative -- each trying to maximize their share of
> the annual-bonus-pie!
>
You mean management by objectives or MBO? That hardly ever works well.
One has to be smarter in deciding on remuneration. Year-plans usually
work just as badly as five-year plans in communist countries do.
> In one case, I *volunteered* what I considered to be a great idea to
> a fellow employee and he rejected it outright -- prefering his
> far inferior implementation lest he have to explain *me* as the
> source for the better idea!
>
That is fiefdom behavior or NIH behavior. We were talking about rewards
after someone did a stellar job. To a good manager it does not matter
how that employee got there, all that matters is that he got there.
>>> If I paid you your going rate -- plus 50% -- and told you I wanted
>>> you to dig ditches for 10 hours a day, would you do it?
>>
>> Yes, Sir! It's very good excercise and I'd even get paid for it.
>
> Ready to sign up for a 20 year hitch? Or, will you just milk it
> for short term gains and leave the ditch-digger-corp high and dry
> when you've sated your immediate goals?
>
As long as my body is able to do it :-)
No kidding, if I were young again I wouldn't study engineering but keep
that as a hobby and studied for brewmaster instead. It's a fun job and
those who are good at it make a ton of money.
Making my hobby a profession had the side effect that I don't want to
deal with electronics for hobby anymore. For example, right now I have
to replace a poorly design temperature controller in a wine fridge in
order to make it a good fermentation cooler/heater. Since it's still
winter that has time and I push that design away every day. That
wouldn't have happened when I was young.
>>> ... Just think
>>> of how handsomely you are being rewarded for a MENIAL TASK! You'd be
>>> a fool NOT to want to work *20* hours a day, right?
>>
>> Right. Except I want time to do volunteering which offers zero income
>> and not
>> even mileage reimbursement, just the way I want it to be.
>
> Ah, but you can make a cash donation to the organization and they can
> HIRE someone at a much lower rate to do the things that YOU would have
> done!
>
Stephen Ministry and things like that? They can definitely not. That
requires a lot of training (also on your own dime). Similar with
visiting Alzheimer's places. Most people cannot take it emotionally and
they have nightmares later. Some try it for a while, even a year or so,
and then quit. 20 years ago I would not have imagined that I could do it.
>>>>> 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 :-)
>>>
>>> I started my (9-to-5) career amid lots of small startups. Delightful
>>> challenges, extremely bright people -- but, often, tenuous financial
>>> situations. There's a balance between "challenge" and "security".
>>>
>>> As my career progressed, security became less important (nest egg,
>>> etc) so challenge regains its appeal. I have no hesitation turning down
>>> work that I'm *expert* at out of sheer anticipated boredom: been there,
>>> done that, T-shirt...
>>>
>>> OTOH, regularly take on interesting challenges /pro bono/ simply for
>>> the OPPORTUNITY to try something new and exciting! To LEARN something.
>>
>> I do mentoring at times plus ministry work. All on a zero-Dollar
>> basis. I am a
>> believer in giving back to society but that's got nothing to do with
>> regular work.
>>
>> Just this morning I helped an engineer get on his feet, pro bono
>> because he was
>> struggling with high voltage stuff. He had never done it before.
>
> I design 6-figure "systems" that folks can't afford to have custom designed
> for their needs. This usually involves a fair bit of time trying to
> ascertain their needs, how they currently approach the problem(s) and
> possible BETTER ways to get to the desired end-state.
>
> Once I've finished observing, I can go off and put together the hardware
> (from
> donor sources) and write the software to make it all work.
>
> They get a (labor saving) system. I get exposure to a new application
> domain
> and the technology that *I* have selected to address it.
>
> (and, of course, I own the IP involved)
>
Good for you. I wouldn't have the time for that because I spend a lot of
my free time on non-tech volunteering.
>>>>>> 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?".
>>>
>>> Most of my work is proof of concept. So, largely uncharted waters.
>>> OTOH, I don't have to "dot the i's and cross the t's" for a
>>> manufacturable
>>> product.
>>
>> Most of us do. My results usually have to be completely production-ready
>> because as you mentioned before, sometimes I am also the whole EE
>> department
>> for a client. Maybe except for software.
>
> I get a design concept to a point where they can chase down VC funding.
> Or, where they can hire a grunt to iron out the details of an
> implementation.
>
Not possible in my case. Hardly any analog grunts available. At least
not many good ones.
> This is very cost-effective for them because they don't pay my rates to
> do mundane things (find the best source for a particular component;
> tweek the colors on the screen; convert the specification into a user
> manual;
> etc.) AND don't have to commit to a full project if, for example, the
> aspects that I'm developing don't pan out. Or, if a mechanism proves
> to costly to build; etc.
>
> For me, I am relieved of the cruft part of the job. And, end up with less
> "invested" (emotionally) if the entire project folds due to some aspect
> that can't be met (e.g., funding).
>
> The ticklish part is when the client wants you to "train" their recent
> hire.
> "Sorry, YOU are responsible for hiring capable employees. My documentation
> speaks for my design so he shouldn't need anything beyond that!"
>
> (No, I'm NOT really interested in the problems he encounters getting from
> concept to production -- I've got my own NEW challenges to address!)
>
> I frequently hear comments like:
> "It took me a while to figure out HOW YOU DO THINGS but, once I did,
> everything was obvious!"
> Note he's commenting on my PROCESS, not my SOLUTION!
>
I work differently. My clients receive a complete module spec with every
project, whether they want it or not, in part because I am also writing
this design-concurrently for myself. That details everything down to
where to 2nd source and all. They can take that and build product. Of
course, I do outsource some aspects such as layout because I'd be too
expensive for that. However, layout guidelines for the more iffy stuff
are in the module spec.
>>> So, its relatively easy to identify bite-sized chunks that are essential
>>> to determining the viability of the idea WITHOUT having to nail down
>>> all the operational and manufacturing details. (let someone else worry
>>> about that; I want to explore the novelty aspects!)
>>
>> Many projects require both. Like when you want to press some parts
>> into service
>> that were not meant to this purpose. I have to go from white-sheet
>> idea all the
>> way to 10 field-tested prototypes.
>
> I build *a* prototype (sometimes 3 if I can get three sets of boards at
> one shot AND there aren't three "mechanisms" needed to make them all
> operational) and use it to illustrate/prove the concept. Then, the
> client can go off and play "what if" games on his own time without
> me having to sit idling (I move on to some other project/client).
>
I am always concurrently on some other project, switching back and forth
as needed. But I do like to see things through all the way to a smooth
production phase.
>>>>> 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 view the hours of my life as a scarce resource. I jealously guard
>>> how they
>>> are "spent". I can always get more money but can't always get more
>>> *time*!
>>
>> Stay fit, that buys you more time. I strictly adhere to certain physical
>> activities. Whack my own firewood, at least 100 miles on a bike each
>> week. A
>> real one, not some stationary deal. Lots of walking. Absolutely
>> positively no
>> fast food, zero. All home-cooked. Even the beer we drink is home-made.
>
> No beer/alcohol. No sweets (excepting ice cream, occasionally). Decaf
> tea. No soda. Very little red meat (SWMBO doesn't like it). No drugs
> (OTC/Rx/recreational). No tobacco. 28miles/7 hours walking each week
> plus 2 hours yard work (installing a subterranean 2000G cistern without
> benefit of a backhoe).
>
Good! Though 28mi of walking alone isn't enough and yard work is less
exercising than one might think.
> My biggest (controllable) risk-factor is regularity of eating (I tend
> to forget to eat) and piss-poor sleep-wake cycle (but, there is ALWAYS
> something more interesting to do than SLEEP! :< )
>
Regular sleep cycles are very important but I know a lot of engineers
who have issues with that. Not healthy. I drop into deep sleep like a
log latest at 11pm and then get up at 6:30am. Very regularly. I had to
shift my mornings after California suffered a (to me predictable)
high-tech exodus to places like Texas which is 2h ahead of us.
>>> So, I am loathe to commit to open-ended projects. Esp if that is a
>>> result
>>> of someone not thinking about their ultimate goals. "Call me when you
>>> have a good idea of where you ant to go with this..."
>>
>> Most of mine are fairly open-ended. It's not so much lack of foresight
>> but the
>> fact that nobdoy has ever done it before. So you got to test, test,
>> redesign,
>> test again et cetera.
>
> I make the first (or second) pass at a design (sometimes someone has
> hacked up the barest "concept" or patent proof before I see it) and
> then leave others to fill in the detail. I make it pretty clear, up front,
> that I'm not here for the long haul. So, nailing down ALL of the tasks
> for which I will be responsible lets clients plan on when I'll be
> making my exit. And, if smart, arranging for some overlap with my
> successor(s).
>
Ok, very different philosophy than mine. My clients are mostly like
dentist clients. They want me to make something new or fix something and
see to it that they can walk out the door free of pain.
>>> My FinL used to claim that it was just as easy to keep the top half
>>> of the
>>> (gas) tank full as the bottom -- a commentary on folks who always
>>> seem to
>>> be running out of gas yet never filling up.
>
> Father-in-Law
>
>> Not sure what a FinL is but I have never run out of gas.
>
> Nor I. OTOH, his kids seemed to like to leave HIM with an empty tank
> (of course, you can understand why! :> )
>
I'd have a pep talk with the kids and if it repeats ... no car keys.
>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Yup. OTOH, if *you* die as a result of not having a procedure, you
>>> might
>>> have a different opinion as to the relative risks involved! :>
>>
>> This is why bit is important that someone knows your wishes in case
>> you can't
>> decide for yourself anymore.
>
> What's MORE important is that you have organizations and providers who
> will HONOR your wishes -- and not resort to "religious objections" to
> justify
> imposing THEIR wishes on you and your heirs!
>
As a practicing Lutheran I have no problem with that :-)
>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> How do you know that is their intent?
>>
>> It usually becomes rather obvious in very early discussions.
>
> I designed a product with really tight cost pressures -- only to
> later "discover" that the "price" was 20X my DM+DL *and* they
> were GIVEN AWAY ("toilet paper dispensers"). Sure, there is
> some rationale in keeping the cost low esp if you are using
> them as loss-leaders. But, how much calendar time could have been
> salvaged had they simply made this known in the beginning and
> trusted us "not to be sloppy" with our costs?
>
With me this is always up to the client, their decision. They pay my
time and materials and what they do with the results is their turf.
>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Its built into *new* TV's! We don't watch broadcast TV so see no
>>> need to
>>> upgrade our "oversized DVD monitor". We keep a DTV decoder for the few
>>> times we want to watch the local news (vs. check online). Why buy a new
>>> TV just to get a "free DTV decoder" -- esp when the new TV doesn't
>>> have an
>>> interactive program guide?
>>
>> TV has become fairly useless ever since they switched to digital (and I
>> predicted that). It pixelates out, loses audio a lot. Often we just
>> give up and
>> now we have an Android box to watch stuff via Internet. Like an old
>> German
>> movie from 1953 yesterday that you can't even rent anywhere anymore.
>
> We've never been big "TV consumers". Given the choice between sleep
> and TV, sleep would win -- and, you can see (above) that *it* usually
> gets short-changed.
>
> OTOH, I "watch" a movie (DVD) nearly every night while working.
> (taking 2 hours out of my day to actually sit in front of the TV
> would be a colossal waste!)
>
I can't have TV on while concentrating on a design and there is no TV in
my office. The only distraction I afford myself is music while
hand-checking a netlist or when solding stuff.
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> But, they were able to accurately target their stated reliability goal!
>>> I'd be hard pressed to even know how to BEGIN to cut things that close!
>>> Surely, a great deal of skill and experience involved...
>>
>> That's almost the same as saying that Billy the Kid was a great man
>> because of
>> his super marksmanship. Never mind all the folks he killed and all the
>> women he
>> made widows.
>
> The same guy who can get a product to fail just outside its warranty
> window is probably also the best guy to get a product to last forever!
>
The fact that he stooped down to the level of designing with "planned
obsolescence" makes me lose respect for the guy.
> The gun isn't the villain...
Never was. It's the people behind its handle.
--
Regards, Joerg
http://www.analogconsultants.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | tabbypurr@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-07 12:16 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <756dbf68-8264-46a1-bf54-c3d6477fbb49@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #446550 |
On Tuesday, 7 February 2017 01:12:38 UTC, Joerg wrote: > No, they were top notch people. We sometimes had discussions about > incentives which usually included employees. The consensus was always > the same: "If you want to really reward us don't use all sorts of gizmos > or free this, that and the other thing. Just put a check in our hands". Being offered assorted things that are of zero value or interest can be very demotivational. Cash is good. > >> But not all large corp engineers are like that. > > > > I've only a few "big corporation" experiences to draw on. All were > > disappointing (even as a contractor). A lack of passion and interest > > seemed common. And, lots of silly overhead (meetings, design by > > committee, risk aversion, etc.) +1. I learnt early that's not what I wanted. NT
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw@notreal.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-06 21:11 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <epai9cdle11qa2798fod3o16g4c6c0q6ag@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #446489 |
On Mon, 06 Feb 2017 14:35:43 -0800, Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> wrote: <...> > >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. I refused to go to a 5-6:00 software meeting today. I told them that if were that important (it's something I've had to explain to them a dozen times but they still don't get it [*]) we could meet at 7:30 tomorrow morning. Of course they won't be in until 9:00 or 9:30. ...but I'm supposed to stay? > [*] They want to do an unnecessary unnatural act with the hardware but they don't want to listen to reason. <...>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | tabbypurr@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-05 12:43 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <9bd1cd6d-b096-407e-8c8a-91faef826348@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #446293 |
On Sunday, 5 February 2017 16:13:51 UTC, Joerg wrote: > On 2017-02-04 13:15, Don Y wrote: > > 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. I've still got a few lytics from the 1930s in service. The 1920s stuff only used paper caps, none of which have survived. 2uF reservoir caps certainly came as a surprise to me. NT
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw@notreal.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-04 20:42 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <d80d9cp55hki6b3j7l0opk34bpts1vnd9e@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #446135 |
On Sat, 4 Feb 2017 12:34:37 -0700, Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> 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? I'm more of a 7:30-to-4:30 engineer, anymore. >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. > >He went on to say that he couldn't recall the last time ANY of >"the guys" had stayed past 5PM. > >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. Where was this? I've never heard of such a thing. We did have one *new* manager who told everyone, in a department meeting, that he didn't like the lightning chess game going on from 11:30 to 1:00 and that everyone *had* to work at least 40 hours (implying that he would be watching). Note that the chess game may have gone on for an hour and a half but people just dropped by to get their ten minutes in (five minute clock). I told him that my wife would be really happy now that I had a forty hour job (I was working 60+, at the time). He said "I didn't mean you". Hey, if you're going to watch when I come and go, I'll play. The previous manager (didn't give a rat's ass when you came and went) told everyone in a department meeting that he had some good news and some bad news. "The good news is that from now on, we're working half-days." "The bad news is that there's 24 hours in a day." He wasn't kidding (though I'd already been doing it for months). > >>> 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? > >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?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-04 10:05 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <bn5c9ctfe6ucog1785ogmoo0lmdmupdrvt@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #445956 |
On Fri, 3 Feb 2017 09:35:55 -0700, Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> 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 our lives depend on good medical practise. Few electronic design bugs kill people. > >I've watched technicians NOT clean the flux from a board they've >just repaired; not inspect the quality of their solder joints >(as if they KNOW their work is "top quality" -- not!); "programmers" >who will only "test" their code at gunpoint; "continuing education" >being little more than reading trade rags; plumbers who don't properly >prep a joint before sweating it (nor cleaning it afterwards!); >painters who just make a token attempt at cleaning their brushes; >or, inflate their rates; etc. > >Yet, we seem to expect the medical professionals to be on top >of all the latest research; "take the initiative" to track down >OUR test results (instead of waiting for them to fall into >their laps in the normal course of events); be "on call" and >have ready appointments when we need them; etc. > >Last time I checked, they're "just people". They look forward >to Fridays as much as anyone else. They have similar motivations >and aren't all rooted in self-actualization, etc. Out next-door neighbors are both MDs. They often work weekends. They have an impossibly cute kid, and sometimes have a limo take her to day care, when they both have to be at the hospital in the early morning. -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc lunatic fringe electronics
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-04 10:24 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <efmkifFctarU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #446122 |
On 2017-02-04 10:05, John Larkin wrote: > On Fri, 3 Feb 2017 09:35:55 -0700, Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> > 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 our lives depend on good medical practise. Few electronic > design bugs kill people. > Oh, they can. One classic area is fly-by-wire, another is med-tech. If the angio or ultrasound blitzes off in the middle of a procedure that can become "interesting". Also, the absense of electronics regularly kills people. Such as our medieval train system. Europe had automatic train control since more than half a century, we largely still don't. That has costs lots of lives, like here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Chatsworth_train_collision [...] -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-04 12:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <o75au7$js5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #446122 |
On 2/4/2017 11:05 AM, John Larkin wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Feb 2017 09:35:55 -0700, Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid>
> 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 our lives depend on good medical practise. Few electronic
> design bugs kill people.
You're confusing skill and dedication. Would you relish a doctor
who works long hours on your care, weekends, etc. -- but is largely
incompetent?
"Yeah, but at least he TRIES!"
>> I've watched technicians NOT clean the flux from a board they've
>> just repaired; not inspect the quality of their solder joints
>> (as if they KNOW their work is "top quality" -- not!); "programmers"
>> who will only "test" their code at gunpoint; "continuing education"
>> being little more than reading trade rags; plumbers who don't properly
>> prep a joint before sweating it (nor cleaning it afterwards!);
>> painters who just make a token attempt at cleaning their brushes;
>> or, inflate their rates; etc.
>>
>> Yet, we seem to expect the medical professionals to be on top
>> of all the latest research; "take the initiative" to track down
>> OUR test results (instead of waiting for them to fall into
>> their laps in the normal course of events); be "on call" and
>> have ready appointments when we need them; etc.
>>
>> Last time I checked, they're "just people". They look forward
>> to Fridays as much as anyone else. They have similar motivations
>> and aren't all rooted in self-actualization, etc.
>
> Out next-door neighbors are both MDs. They often work weekends.
And there are medical professionals who take off *every* Friday.
(Virtually impossible to find a dentist in town that practices on
a Friday)
And, ones who will fail to follow through on their "promises".
(E.g., reporting your test results to you promptly -- a friend
is waiting to hear if her mastectomy will require chemo, etc.
Wouldn't you think her doctor would KNOW that she's waiting
on pins and needles for that call?)
The same is true of engineer, technicians, plumbers, etc.
A neighbor had just moved in and found himself (and wife and
newborn child) locked out of the house -- on a Sunday. He called
around to a few locksmiths and, despite the super-extra-premium-rates
that they justify for sunday "emergency service", none would step
away from their TV's ("I'll be there after the game...")
So, he and his wife and newborn should spend the next few hours
in the blistering heat?
I broke a tooth many years ago (pistachio nuts). On a Sunday.
Called the dentist "on call" for my regular dentist. Despite
KNOWING the sort of pain I was in, he grumbled: "Cant it
wait until Monday?" And, eventually only consented to see
me AFTER he'd finished dinner, etc.: "Meet me in three hours
at the corner of WALK and DON'T WALK..."
> They have an impossibly cute kid, and sometimes have a limo take her
> to day care, when they both have to be at the hospital in the early
> morning.
>
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "dcaster@krl.org" <dcaster@krl.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-04 17:54 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <9a90d926-cc19-461c-9cca-6d7b0ceddfd5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #446137 |
On Saturday, February 4, 2017 at 2:45:56 PM UTC-5, Don Y wrote:
>
> And, ones who will fail to follow through on their "promises".
> (E.g., reporting your test results to you promptly -- a friend
> is waiting to hear if her mastectomy will require chemo, etc.
> Wouldn't you think her doctor would KNOW that she's waiting
> on pins and needles for that call?)
>
>
My wife was promised to get some test results on a Friday. Something happened and the clinic had the results but the doctor was not available to give the results to her. I told the person on duty that if they did not give her the test results that I would break into the clinic with a chain saw if necessary and get the results. They came up with the results in about an hour. I heard they also revised their procedures as a result.
Dan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-04 21:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <o76ahv$bek$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #446205 |
On 2/4/2017 6:54 PM, dcaster@krl.org wrote: > On Saturday, February 4, 2017 at 2:45:56 PM UTC-5, Don Y wrote: > >> And, ones who will fail to follow through on their "promises". (E.g., >> reporting your test results to you promptly -- a friend is waiting to hear >> if her mastectomy will require chemo, etc. Wouldn't you think her doctor >> would KNOW that she's waiting on pins and needles for that call?) > > My wife was promised to get some test results on a Friday. Something > happened and the clinic had the results but the doctor was not available to > give the results to her. I told the person on duty that if they did not > give her the test results that I would break into the clinic with a chain > saw if necessary and get the results. They came up with the results in > about an hour. I heard they also revised their procedures as a result. My MD/PCP (and his staff) will release my test results directly to me if I call and ask. Of course, that assumes I can make sense of them (e.g., "negative" is easy to grok! numeric scores not so much...) I think HIPPA places some limits on WHO they can provide the information. And, I'm sure certain types of tests might WANT to have someone actively available to put the results in context. E.g., testing for a malignancy is probably not the sort of thing you want to risk getting results without having someone on-hand to explain them -- lest you over-react. A friend just lost a breast and is waiting for some indication as to whether ANOTHER shoe will drop. A weekend is a LONG time to wait when you're facing that sort of news. Another friend had a tumor excised (after months of lost biopsies, etc.) and was similarly waiting to know if that surgery would be the FINAL surgery or just the start of a whole PROCESS. When you followup and get "put off" (the doctor will have to talk to you), it's hard hard for that not to become an oh-shit! moment... [Hopefully your wife's news was good/encouraging...]
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]
Back to top | Article view | sci.electronics.design
csiph-web