Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.electronics.design > #446314
| From | Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.electronics.design |
| Subject | Re: OT: in favour of gradualism |
| Date | 2017-02-05 11:56 -0700 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <o77se1$40v$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | (3 earlier) <efma0iFanj9U2@mid.individual.net> <o75a8v$hia$1@dont-email.me> <efmqjcFe61gU1@mid.individual.net> <o75g67$6t9$1@dont-email.me> <efp19qFrf1eU1@mid.individual.net> |
On 2/5/2017 9:14 AM, Joerg wrote:
>>>>>>> Would that we could snap our fingers and get a doctor like that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why do we EXPECT medical professionals to be more "dedicated"
>>>>>> than any other profession?
>>>>>
>>>>> Because we as engineers are dedicated?
>>>>
>>>> You've never met a "9-to-5" engineer?
>>>
>>> Yes, but usually in government positions. Very occasionally in private
>>> industry
>>> but then those were very bright folks.
>>
>> I've experience/exposure to gummit labs (i.e., all of their funding
>> comes from the taxpayer), large multinationals (i.e., tens of thousands
>> of employees worldwide), large corporations (thousands of employees),
>> startups (one to four souls) and struggling wannabes (~100 bodies).
>
> There's part of the problem. You should have looked at companies much smaller
> than that. That is also, and not by chance, where most innovation happens.
I've *been* the "Engineering Department" at firms. I've also been employed
at places where there were 6 or 8 other souls in the building, each of us with
a key to the front door and alarm code -- and, responsible to fix the toilet
if it ever backed up!
IME, larger tends to "tolerate" more of a 9-to-5 attitude. But, conversely,
smaller doesn't imply all-hours-of-the-day-and-night heroics.
I've met many engineers who simply treat it as a job. And, others who
consider it a *hobby* (in addition to a job) -- with an extra findness
for the challenges that it presents.
>> 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. Lack of money can demotivate but dangling
a carrot doesn't tend to produce 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"?
>>>> 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..."
>> 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.
>> 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! :>
>> 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.
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!
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!"
>> 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"
>> 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!
> 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 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 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.
Is the purchaser likely to buy a SECOND unit -- even if the first 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?
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?
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!
>> ... 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?? :>
>> Have you cut a corner? Have you achieved perfection? Or, is it someone
>> else's "problem"/concern cuz that's what they asked for?
>
> It won't happen at this here desk.
Back to sci.electronics.design | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
OT: in favour of gradualism bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-03 03:39 -0800
Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Winfield Hill <hill@rowland.harvard.edu> - 2017-02-03 04:21 -0800
Re: OT: in favour of gradualism bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-03 04:57 -0800
Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2017-02-03 11:38 -0600
Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-02-04 07:21 -0800
Re: OT: in favour of gradualism krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-04 10:42 -0500
Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-02-04 08:15 -0800
Re: OT: in favour of gradualism krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-04 11:36 -0500
Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-02-04 09:40 -0800
Re: OT: in favour of gradualism krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-04 13:52 -0500
Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-02-04 11:50 -0800
Re: OT: in favour of gradualism krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-04 20:31 -0500
Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2017-02-04 18:04 -0600
Re: OT: in favour of gradualism krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-04 20:33 -0500
Re: OT: in favour of gradualism jurb6006@gmail.com - 2017-02-03 05:00 -0800
Re: OT: in favour of gradualism bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-03 09:03 -0800
Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-03 09:35 -0700
Re: OT: in favour of gradualism bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-03 09:10 -0800
Re: OT: in favour of gradualism tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-02-03 17:18 -0800
Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-02-04 07:24 -0800
Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-04 12:34 -0700
Re: OT: in favour of gradualism tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-02-04 12:04 -0800
Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-02-04 12:07 -0800
Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-04 14:15 -0700
Re: OT: in favour of gradualism John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-04 14:02 -0800
Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-04 15:19 -0700
Re: OT: in favour of gradualism "tom" <tmiller11147@verizon.net> - 2017-02-04 17:36 -0500
Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-04 15:46 -0700
Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-02-04 14:56 -0800
Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-04 16:17 -0700
Re: OT: in favour of gradualism "tom" <tmiller11147@verizon.net> - 2017-02-04 18:22 -0500
Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-04 16:55 -0700
Re: OT: in favour of gradualism John Robertson <spam@flippers.com> - 2017-02-04 18:22 -0800
Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-04 21:26 -0700
Re: OT: in favour of gradualism "tom" <tmiller11147@verizon.net> - 2017-02-04 17:35 -0500
Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-04 15:44 -0700
Re: OT: in favour of gradualism "dcaster@krl.org" <dcaster@krl.org> - 2017-02-04 17:42 -0800
Re: OT: in favour of gradualism krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-04 20:56 -0500
Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-02-05 08:14 -0800
Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-05 11:56 -0700
Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-02-06 14:35 -0800
Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-06 16:43 -0700
Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-02-06 17:12 -0800
Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-06 18:59 -0700
Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-02-07 07:40 -0800
Re: OT: in favour of gradualism tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-02-07 12:16 -0800
Re: OT: in favour of gradualism krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-06 21:11 -0500
Re: OT: in favour of gradualism tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-02-05 12:43 -0800
Re: OT: in favour of gradualism krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-04 20:42 -0500
Re: OT: in favour of gradualism John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-04 10:05 -0800
Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-02-04 10:24 -0800
Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-04 12:45 -0700
Re: OT: in favour of gradualism "dcaster@krl.org" <dcaster@krl.org> - 2017-02-04 17:54 -0800
Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-04 21:45 -0700
csiph-web