Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.electronics.design > #446507
| From | Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.electronics.design |
| Subject | Re: OT: in favour of gradualism |
| Date | 2017-02-06 16:43 -0700 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <o7b1kb$l0g$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | (5 earlier) <efmqjcFe61gU1@mid.individual.net> <o75g67$6t9$1@dont-email.me> <efp19qFrf1eU1@mid.individual.net> <o77se1$40v$1@dont-email.me> <efsc1dFhr3bU1@mid.individual.net> |
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...
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