The only engineer at a business meeting.

[38Chevy454]

As an engineer I can relate. When I first got out of school and in my first engineer job, I quickly realized that engineers were told when, and how much cost, to fix a problem. But this was from higher level accounting and scheduling type folks that had zero idea what the actual work would take.

In general, engineers make judgment calls based on a limited set of data. Is it black or white? Well, the data is some shade of grey and you have to make decisions based on that, and usually without the time you would like to have.

I guess that's why the accounting and scheduling types are paid the big bucks.........

 

[GalaxyBoy]

I think that was my project manager in that meeting. At least, he stuck up for that poor engineer the same way my PMs stick up for me.

 

[daylatedollarshort]

What I find strange is how many customers are willing to plunk down prodigiously large amounts of money without having their technical people talk to their suppliers' technical people to assure they're not getting snowed by marketing.

I worked at a place where the VP bought productivity improvement software, and when I asked the sales guy how long it took other companies to actually realize the productivity improvements, he said with a straight face 4 years. He even added that because of training and the learning curve projects would take longer during the four year crossover period. Crazy stuff. Productivity software that makes projects take longer for four years. If I hadn't lived it I wouldn't have believed a lot of the Dilbert cartoon situations could really be true.

This was at a meeting with the VP and a bunch of managers, and the other managers didn't really react. They either didn't get what the four years meant or they were smart enough to simply not to question it. Probably the latter.

 

[Koogie]

Hmm... I can assure you not all engineers are infallible. I work in Logistics which is downstream from Engineering (and everything else, but that is another story).

I've sat in shipping meetings at some very large industrial manufacturers and and looked at schematics of things that engineers have designed and are as proud as punch about.
Never mind these things are to large, to heavy or a combination of the two to be moved down the road, onto a railcar or onto a vessel for anything less than a kings ransom or a redesign of highways or a change in the laws of geometry.

But, heh, their drawings sure were purdy..........

 

[frayne]

I worked with many chemical and mechanical engineers during my stint as an operation superintendent at a chemical/refinery complex. Whenever I had an engineer putting in a project, I always assigned a plant operator and a mechanic to assist and oversee the project to make sure valves where accessible and the equipment could be maintained without tearing out or shutting down the rest of the plant. I could tell you horror stories of engineers working alone putting in projects that had to be completely reworked due to not enough input from a practical operating/maintenance perspective. That said, I still have the utmost respect for those in the engineering field and agree with most of the Dilbert like insanity that comes down from above and like bird ****.

 

[2B]

I worked with many chemical and mechanical engineers during my stint as an operation superintendent at a chemical/refinery complex.

How did you get to that position without being an engineer yourself? I got to that level coming up through the ranks but I started as a basic engineer.

I had one plant manager that was an accountant. He understood the P/L statement for the site but had no clue what went into achieving the numbers. One year he increased our yields beyond theoretical so we would have had to create matter to meet it but somehow we failed. He had no concept of a heat and material balance. He abused us a few years and was promoted to headquarters. He had been repeatedly rewarded for irrational and nasty behavior at the plant level he continued with that operating mode in his new postion. The headquarters people wouldn't tolerate that and he was fired in less than a year.

I agree with putting operators and maintenance personnel on any project review. They are requred for the HAZOPs and LOPAs. They always go better with some prior exposure to the project.

 

[frayne]

Actually started out in 1974 as an hourly employee and took a promotion to front line operating supervisor then day operating supervisor, plant safety superintendent, assistant area superintendent and then finally area operations superintendent. The plant operations manager wanted me in the position and got permission to rewrite the job description as it required a degreed engineer. Along with the experience of coming up through the ranks, I attended many engineering, HR, safety,environmental, etc., etc.courses, through the likes of Clemson, Ohio State, Texas A&M and the University of Arizona to name a just a few. Also held a stationary engineers license in the state of Ohio, which in and of itself is no big deal. Retired in 2005 after a very challenging and enjoyable 32 year long career. Not that it matters but I think there was something in my genes that helped as my father and grandfather were both Ohio State degreed electrical and civil engineers.

Almost 100% of the managers and superintendents were chemical engineers. The bean counters usually were at the VP level of the organization.

 

[unclemick]

1986. Challenger. That one didn't leave me laughing.

heh heh heh - work was never the same after that. They did subsequently replace a lot of the management.

 

[Chuckanut]

Whenever I had an engineer putting in a project, I always assigned a plant operator and a mechanic to assist and oversee the project to make sure valves where accessible and the equipment could be maintained without tearing out or shutting down the rest of the plant. I could tell you horror stories of engineers working alone putting in projects that had to be completely reworked due to not enough input from a practical operating/maintenance perspective.

FWIW, this is hear-say from an employee of the company, a well known jet plane manufacturer, who has had troubles with parts out sourced to contractors all around the globe, did not follow your example. Supposedly, while the company did send engineers to the companies to make sure they had the specs correct and were doing the job properly, they never sent anybody who worked on the assembly lines. When the parts got to the assembly plant, the guys assembling the planes found numerous problems and conflicts with the assembly process.

From what I also understand, the decision to out source so much of the production of the plane was made in meetings similar to the one in the video. Again, this is hear-say.

 

[frayne]

Whenever I watch engineering disasters on the history channel, it just makes me cringe and feel for the poor bastards that probably had to design and build whatever under unrealistic time and budget constraints.

 

[frayne]

FWIW, this is hear-say from an employee of the company, a well known jet plane manufacturer, who has had troubles with parts out sourced to contractors all around the globe, did not follow your example. Supposedly, while the company did send engineers to the companies to make sure they had the specs correct and were doing the job properly, they never sent anybody who worked on the assembly lines. When the parts got to the assembly plant, the guys assembling the planes found numerous problems and conflicts with the assembly process.

From what I also understand, the decision to out source so much of the production of the plane was made in meetings similar to the one in the video. Again, this is hear-say.

On many projects that required overnight travel to an offsite vendor I would more often than not send an hourly employee or two which was pretty much unheard of back in the day. The payback was many fold as the hourly people would come back to the plant with a greater appreciation of what it takes to work a project plus they had a much better understanding how the equipment was supposed to work.

 

[aja8888]

(Engineer here and have years of operations management experience too)

A thought just crossed my mind as I wonder how many engineers are in those Chinese plants that are making the "knock off" spare parts much of our aftermarket needs? Or just knock off goods in general?

Having bought a few disc brake rotors at 1/2 price what an OEM ones go for, should I have been surprised that they only last a few months before warping so badly they can't be turned?

Maybe they have engineers but none have had materials science courses?

 

[Ronstar]

I attended several meetings during my last year of work that were similar to the video. Approx 20 people attended these meetings, have of whom were engineers, the other half legal and management. During these meetings, I detected that the engineers were going one direction and everyone else was going another. At first I thought that there was a communication problem the engineers and others. There was, but the overriding issue was unrealistic expectations that engineers had of the others and vice versa. It's amazing how little is accomplished when everyone is trying to protect one's turf as opposed to trying to work as a team.

 

[Texas Proud]

FWIW, this is hear-say from an employee of the company, a well known jet plane manufacturer, who has had troubles with parts out sourced to contractors all around the globe, did not follow your example. Supposedly, while the company did send engineers to the companies to make sure they had the specs correct and were doing the job properly, they never sent anybody who worked on the assembly lines. When the parts got to the assembly plant, the guys assembling the planes found numerous problems and conflicts with the assembly process.

From what I also understand, the decision to out source so much of the production of the plane was made in meetings similar to the one in the video. Again, this is hear-say.

And how is this not the engineer's fault If they cannot draw up the specs that some other engineer can follow..... well...


Just sayin.....

 

[Texas Proud]

This did not come from an engineer... but close enough....

During a finance meeting it was pointed out that they were selling the stuff for less than variable costs... and the response was 'We will make it up in volume'...

True story... my boss almost blew a gasket....

 

[aja8888]

This did not come from an engineer... but close enough....

During a finance meeting it was pointed out that they were selling the stuff for less than variable costs... and the response was 'We will make it up in volume'...

True story... my boss almost blew a gasket....

Our sales force used to do that with copper water tube when I worked for Anaconda back east (loss leader of sorts). Now all that tubing is made overseas.

 

[scrinch]

Had a lunch with one of our PhD engineers who actually said: "gee, the thermal energy radiating off this surface is quite high". (THE PLATE IS REALLY HOT!)

Probably he didn't touch the plate, he only put his hand close to it. Nothing wrong not burning yourself, and then only stating what you truly know.

I currently work for a $200+B Megacorp that 10 years ago put an elaborate project management process in place designed to ensure that projects come in on time and within budget. During my training for this process, we saw how projects now take longer and cost more than they used to, but they come in on time and within budget. As a company, we're very proud of this process!

 

[clifp]

This did not come from an engineer... but close enough....

During a finance meeting it was pointed out that they were selling the stuff for less than variable costs... and the response was 'We will make it up in volume'...

True story... my boss almost blew a gasket....

He/She was kidding right

 

[bUU]

the overriding issue was unrealistic expectations that engineers had of the others and vice versa. It's amazing how little is accomplished when everyone is trying to protect one's turf as opposed to trying to work as a team.

My experience with (and as) an engineer in such meetings is that we typically don't have turf that we're trying to protect. We're aiming to do our jobs, and generally the parameters of our jobs aren't negotiable in the same way a sales contract or a service-level agreement is negotiable. I know I personally view myself as a resource, as a service to offer to product management to achieve their goals. I don't have a preference between "tell me what you want and I'll tell you how much resources will be necessary" versus "tell me how much resources you'll provide and I'll tell you how much I can give you for it". But I don't brook with the "we'll tell you both what you will give us and how much resources we're going to provide you to do so", which seems to be the instinctive reaction I've seen to today's extremely competitive environment whereby there simply isn't enough to do what needs to be done. The business types seem to have a much harder time than us engineering types, accepting that limited resources implies limited results. I would hate to be in a situation where I couldn't effectively push back against unreasonable expectations, but I suspect I'm very lucky to be in such a rare situation for an engineer.

 

[frayne]

This did not come from an engineer... but close enough....

During a finance meeting it was pointed out that they were selling the stuff for less than variable costs... and the response was 'We will make it up in volume'...

True story... my boss almost blew a gasket....

That my friends would make a great Dilbert cartoon.

 

[growing_older]

I've sat in far too many of these meetings where management is demanding red lines in all the colors of the rainbow. But Ive also been in meetings where sales has sold red lines, we have a deadline to produce the red lines in a week, and the engineers are demanding an additional two months to study what color red is the reddest, and to design a pen that can produce any multicolor line in case the customer doesn't want red in the future. This can go both ways.

 

[ERD50]

Supposedly, while the company did send engineers to the companies to make sure they had the specs correct and were doing the job properly, they never sent anybody who worked on the assembly lines. When the parts got to the assembly plant, the guys assembling the planes found numerous problems and conflicts with the assembly process.

And how is this not the engineer's fault If they cannot draw up the specs that some other engineer can follow..... well...


Just sayin.....

Agreed - the specs should have covered everything.

Had a lunch with one of our PhD engineers who actually said: "gee, the thermal energy radiating off this surface is quite high". (THE PLATE IS REALLY HOT!)

I'd expect more from a PhD. The term "quite high" is relative, surely that plate was not hotter than the surface of the Sun! We need a reference point, or it is meaningless blabber! What he/she should have said was: "gee, the thermal energy radiating off this surface is high enough above ambient to be detectable by my biological sensory mechanisms." But "THE PLATE IS REALLY HOT!" would have made the same point, even non-degreed humans could connect the dots.

Hmm... I can assure you not all engineers are infallible. I work in Logistics which is downstream from Engineering (and everything else, but that is another story).

I've sat in shipping meetings at some very large industrial manufacturers and and looked at schematics of things that engineers have designed and are as proud as punch about.

Never mind these things are to large, to heavy or a combination of the two to be moved down the road, onto a railcar or onto a vessel for anything less than a kings ransom or a redesign of highways or a change in the laws of geometry.

But, heh, their drawings sure were purdy..........

Of course not all engineers are infallible, I think it's safe to say that all engineers are fallible. The questions is - where did the failure occur?

Your above example could be the flip side of Texas Proud's example saying the engineers may be the ones at fault for not providing the proper specs to an out-sourced assembly plant. In your example, were the engineers given specs on the size and weight constraints of the design? Though you could also say that they should have asked, but heck, if it wasn't important enough to specify, then why should the engineer make it important enough to constrain the design? There were probably already many, many constraints. Engineering is largely about managing constraints.

If you were in Logistics, maybe it was your responsibility to get those size/weight constraints in the specs?

Maybe it would two king's ransoms to make it smaller, lighter? If so, they did the right thing.

-ERD50

 

[Koogie]

Of course not all engineers are infallible, I think it's safe to say that all engineers are fallible. The questions is - where did the failure occur?
Your above example could be the flip side of Texas Proud's example saying the engineers may be the ones at fault for not providing the proper specs to an out-sourced assembly plant. In your example, were the engineers given specs on the size and weight constraints of the design? Though you could also say that they should have asked, but heck, if it wasn't important enough to specify, then why should the engineer make it important enough to constrain the design? There were probably already many, many constraints. Engineering is largely about managing constraints.

If you were in Logistics, maybe it was your responsibility to get those size/weight constraints in the specs? -ERD50

Actually, I am a completely blameless (ahemm!) outside vendor brought in after the fact. I agree there should have been an supervisor at some point saying:

"hey fellas, wait a minute. we're an exporting company. wonder if we should see if these things can be moved off of our factory property to anywhere else in the world to the people who want to buy them"

And, if it was a supervisor in the engineering department, wouldn't he/she probably have been an engineer to ? Thereby compounding the engineering oversight ? And actually, as memory serves, the CEO of that division was an engineer. Triple compounding the oversight !!

Anyway, just kidding and yes, everyone in these cases (except ME, ME, ME, lol) was fallible, not just the engineers. But, also, come on. Engineers don't design things in a vacuum do they ? They don't get put in a cupboard at the end of the day and not let out to see the real world ? Common sense might have helped (I know, not so common).

And in the end, the products did have to get re-engineered so they could be exported cost effectively. So, early input by someone (not necessarily an engineer) could have saved a lot of grief and cost. But, it would have robbed me of some goods stories...

 

[ERD50]

Reflecting on all this, and I was often in a position between the design engineers and the 'rest of the world' so I have a decent perspective I think, the crux of the issue is that people outside of engineering often do not have a good idea (or even think to ask) what the effect of their requirements will have. And engineering often does not know enough about the 'outside world' to push back against certain requirements.

I recall one case in particular, I was asked sit in on some conference calls with a product group I never worked with before. This product was having some high field failure rates, and upper management wanted me to provide some outside views and 'fresh eyes' on the problem. I felt pretty empowered to ask 'dumb questions' - heck I barely knew just a few people on this team and I knew I'd have to report back to my bosses, so even dumb questions would be better than no questions.

It became clear the problems were mechanical in nature, components were fracturing due to flex of the circuit board, and all the solutions were centered around trying to beef up support of the board, and/or allow it to 'float'. Each iteration of these 'fixes' would take weeks of testing, and often had little improvement.

After some more investigation, I find out this circuit board was much thinner than in any other similar product we made. I talked with some of our Mech Engineers, and found that in simple terms, flex would increase by a cubed factor of the reduction in thickness of the PC board. So their board being about 1/3 less thick could exhibit about 9x the flex!

So my 'dumb suggestion' - just make the stupid PC board thicker!

Their engineers told me they couldn't make the PC board thicker - they had a total height requirement from marketing, and there was no other place to take height out.

So I talked to marketing, and they claimed the height requirement was non-negotiable with the customer (edit/add: this was a portable device, not something that had to fit in a standard rack or some other physical 'hard' limit on dimensions - it was just a 'want'). But we are talking about a thickness increase that I don't think any human could detect, even with two samples side-by-side, w/o a dial calipers! But I could not convince the marketing guy to submit dummy samples to the customer for review, with the explanation/promise of increased field reliability for the slightly thicker version.

So bottom line, outside of regulatory/safety requirements, almost nothing should be spec'd as an absolute. Engineers should be told, "The product will be worth $X/unit more over its life if we can meet xyz goal. Your goal is to do it for less than that, including warranty costs."

That undetectable reduction in thickness in that product probably cost the company $1M, maybe more when you consider future lost sales from customer dissatisfaction, and the opportunity cost of all those engineers tied up in fixing a problem instead of working on the next new product.

I don't now if the engineers pushed back when they realized how fragile that PCB would be, but if they did they were probably told - just do it, that's your job! Make it work!

-ERD50

 

[ERD50]

... But, also, come on. Engineers don't design things in a vacuum do they ? They don't get put in a cupboard at the end of the day and not let out to see the real world ? Common sense might have helped (I know, not so common). ...

Absolutely, but without knowing all the details of everything in this case, I was just throwing those out as general possibilities.

In a big organization, it can be tough for underlings to know when they should question something, and apply 'common sense', or when they should go with what they were given. Especially when the project is super-challenging, do you really want to add a constraint to your project (though maybe you should, for the well being of the project)?

See my previous post for an example.

-ERD50