Job Interview

[plthijinx]

ok first off and i apologize for what i'm fixing to say...i was wondering if you were serious here or if you were trolling. with this post i see now. and again i apologize. my fault. now that's said and done....

That engineer was fired. So many people came running up to me with what was generally regarded as good new - to everyone but me. He was making the mistakes. But he was not where the problem should be solved. I felt real bad about it. He was making those mistakes because that was the attitude in that engineering department. He was only a victim - from my perspective.

let me ask you this because i have seen it so so SO (had to pound on the keyboard for caps btw) many times....engineers tend to be fixated on the job they are on at the moment. when they are given mark-ups from a previous job they toss them aside. it is their job to make sure said mark-ups get done or at least pass them to someone who can cad them up. why then, don't they implement the changes from the prior job to the next? i've got a thousand excuses for them but it all comes down to the wire. they didn't implement them because they were lazy. imho. not to mention the engineering god complex some of them get. sheesh.

[tw]

Originally Posted by plthijinx

let me ask you this because i have seen it so so SO (had to pound on the keyboard for caps btw) many times....engineers tend to be fixated on the job they are on at the moment. when they are given mark-ups from a previous job they toss them aside. it is their job to make sure said mark-ups get done or at least pass them to someone who can cad them up.

To make changes means one must have a job shop number. That account was closed by accounting. Cannot be reopened. No job number to charge to. Then no changes can be implemented. Even if he tried, he has no CAD operator to process the changes. No account to pay for filing that ECN which included sign offs by other departments.

Another problem is a 'you must have this done now' attitude. Means no time for the previous job. In that example, a second system was constructed just like the first because management assumed the first system was done. Management made no provisions for 'learning' from those mistakes because that was never done before and because they did not work where the work gets done. Best was to remain in denial because it will only increase costs – make management look bad. Engineer does not even know a second system is being assembled. In every case, it is a question of who is in charge. That is not the person with information.

How did Iacocca save Chrysler? He simply made engineers responsible. So Chrysler engineers fixed thousands of defects just in the first year. Defects were known. But they were not permitted to fix them. In but three years, Chrysler went from massive losses to record profits. No new model did that. Chrysler engineers were finally permitted and also encouraged to fix the little things. But moreso, Iacocca put the engineers back in charge.

And finally, some engineers are only doing a job. That is not a problem as long as they know what that job entails. These engineers do not take initiative - to even subvert the system in order to accomplish something. See that word 'encouraged' in the previous paragraph? It also belongs here.

You want an annual raise? Do only what accountants can measure. Just do the job as told. They really cannot be blamed for doing so. Sometimes confronting reality or dealing with an unpopular truth can only get your fired. Especially when bosses are only working for their bosses; not working for the employees.

Many if not most engineers I worked with were so beaten down that it was only a job. Many would rather have been doing something else. What they were creating provided no satisfaction. Not what they originally got into engineering to do. But they needed the paycheck. Had few to no options. If the boss does not tell them to update the prints, then don't rock the boat.

Iacocca told them to do what they got into engineering to do. It changed everything resulting in record profits in only three years.

Why would any engineer take initiative to fix problems when a system is all about reducing costs; the product be damned? Print errors do not appear on spread sheets as increased costs. Just a few suggestions why they would not bother to fix prints. In every case, these problems start at the top.

Why were GM cars so innovative in the 1950s and 1960s? Because division presidents owned their own engineering departments. And therefore protected their engineers from corporate and accounting subversion.