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

Groups > sci.electronics.design > #446550

Re: OT: in favour of gradualism

Show all headers | View raw

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/

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

Thread

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

csiph-web