General discussion
-
CreatorTopic
-
November 15, 2006 at 6:58 am #2247957
The Deterioration of American Engineering
Lockedby the_webninja9 · about 17 years, 4 months ago
The Deterioration of American Engineering
My Objectives in writing this, is not to whine and complain, but rather to complain with a PURPOSE.
So that Engineers may read this and Wake the fk up! And provide the people with more Quality and less BS. That is my Goal here, to enlighten the Engineers on higher standards.What do I mean?
I?ll give you some really good examples: A while back I had a Problem with a 1970 Chevy Nova, the Fuel Pump went bad. No problem, it was bolted to the Fire Wall just under the Hood of the car, I unbolted it in about 5 minutes, bought a brand new one for about $12 Dollars and had it fixed in all of about an hour. In 1999 I had a Problem with a 1993 Chevy Camaro fuel Pump, and in order to replace THAT Fuel pump I now had to Lift up the whole Vehicle, Unbolt the Rear Axle from the frame, Remove the Fuel Tank, just to get access to the Fuel Pump which cost about $150.00 dollars. Later on down the road, I had a problem with a 1993 Ford Pick up Truck, I just wanted to give it a Tune up, and Replace the Fuel Filter as part of the Tune up. The Fuel Filter was Located in a very tight spot under the center of the vehicle tucked up into the Frame, and just to remove the Fuel Filter I had to go buy this Special little tool, just to remove the damn thing, and even then they intentionally designed it so there was not enough clearance between one side of the Fuel Filter and the Frame just to make it more difficult to fix. This is how much trouble they cause us if we just want to Tune up our vehicle and maintain it. Which is something that ALL Vehicle owners should be able to do, because if you do not maintain your vehicle, eventually it will stop working sooner than usually. (Meaning maybe they did this intentionally so they could sell more Cars?) What kind of people do things like this? The same kind of people who make Viruses, Hack people?s Computers to steal their Money, and Rip off Enron? Yeah those kind of people.As long as we are on the Subject, in 2000 I had a problem with my fuel pump in my 1994 Toyota Celica,
So I decided it was a good time to give it a Tune up as well. I was Shocked to notice that all I had to do to remove the Fuel pump from my Toyota was lift up the back seat and unbolt it from the Fuel Tank Through a hole in the bottom of the Chassis that the Manufacturers provided for the Owner to work on the Vehicle with ease. I got a really good feeling from this, knowing that the Engineers at Toyota THOUGHT about me, when they designed this car. And I appreciated that. Then I went to change the Spark Plugs and wires, and I noticed that the whole Engine was mounted to a slight Angle to make it easier for the Owner to access the Spark Plugs. I was thinking ?Wow these guys are COOL!? After all of my negative experiences with American Automobiles it felt absolutely REFRESHING to work on a Toyota. Instead of my Wife hearing a bunch of Grumbling and Complaining as I worked on the Car, I came back in the house in only a few minutes with a SMILE on my face, like I just had Sex!A few days later I tried to Flush the Radiator of a 1996 Chevy Cavalier and came to realize that they made the Radiator Drain Valve out of Nylon so that it would Tear off if you tried to use a Pair of Pliers on it. Once again American Engineering is creating Negative Feelings and I begin to associate mental associations of Aggravation in association with anything made in the US because of all of this.
And it is not just something specifically related to Automobile Engineering either. In 2004 I purchased an ATI Radeon 9550 Video Card with 256MB of Video Memory on it. (This was suppose to be a pretty top of the line Card at that time). But when I got it home and installed it into my Machine, I went to adjust the Settings of the Display to True Color, and it only went up to High Color 32 Bit. I downloaded new Updated Drivers and it did nothing. I had a couple problems running Video Software such as Nero with it, and some Problems running some Games too. When I tried contacting the Manufacturer ATI (who is now Owned by AMD) the Customer Service Rep acts like I am some Lowly Pee on Customer who is only Entitled to whatever Customer Service THEY wish to provide, and I should go screw myself if I am not happy with the product, or willing to submit to accepting their BS. I?m not okay with that. I buy something expecting it to WORK. I do not Purchase things so that I can experience Problems with them. It is the job of the Engineer to figure out all the Problems, that?s why they Pay YOU the Big Bucks, and they don?t hire people like me. Cause you are suppose to be SMARTER than me right? So Act like it, and Fix the Problems before you ship the Product. The only thing the Consumer should have to do is plug it in and use it. PERIOD. The User should not have to perform a whole slue of Troubleshooting Procedures just because your Engineers are so damn Lazy or Stupid that they couldn?t bench test the Prototypes enough to figure out every possible scenario BEFORE you ship it!
And ATI is not the only Guilty party, we all have had some Grumbling and Cursing projected towards Microsoft at one point or another. And I just KNOW that Vista is going to be packing it?s own unique batch of Nightmares we will all have to fight our way through. But the question is WHY? When did it become OKAY to ship Products with known Problems and Bugs in it? When did that become Acceptable? If I gave a Teacher a Multi-Media Format Software Program that I produced for an Assignment, and the Teacher Couldn?t even USE it, do you think I would get a Passing Grade on that Project? It should be Common Sense shouldn?t it? Or has Americans become so corrupt, and so Stupid, that mediocrity and substandard work, and intentional sabotage like the American Automobile Companies Practice, becomes the Norm in Engineering? Is this the RIGHT way to do things? I don?t think so.
Global Star Software is another Company that produces at least one Software Program I know of with Bugs in it, called Jet Fighter IV. I bought this Program then Tried to run it on my PC, and it kept Locking up every time I tried to Click on any Start option to start the Game. I could run down a whole list of my Top of the line Components that would show you there would be no reason why a Game should Lock up on my PC. I am running 1 GB of Ram, plus 256MB of Video Ram. But the question is, why do they Ship a Game that will not Run? It should be tested on every single Format, with every different kind of Video Card and Every single Driver. If it is not, then the Engineers are not doing their Job, and they should be Fired for Dereliction of Duty PERIOD. If you are not going to hire people like ME to supervise those idiots, then you need to take the responsibility for it. And maybe YOU should be Fired too for allowing it to happen.
And when you Produce a Product that has Flaws, your Customer Service Rep had better be French Kissing my Asss. Because if they are not, do you actually think I am going to Forgive you for creating a bunch of Problems for me? No, no, no, you take your Customer Service Reps with those Attitude Problems right out, or I will be typing up a letter about YOUR Company next. And if people stop Supporting these Companies who Promote and Produce Substandard Products that create so many problems for all of us, then these Companies committing these great evils will fall, and be forgotten or remembered as the BAD example in Engineering, as they should be. We should not Support Substandard Engineering ANYWHERE in the World. To create Problems for the Customer would be like biting the hand that feeds you. It makes no Sense.
Engineering follows a PLAN, and when you Produce Products that Create Problems I consider this a PLANNED ACTION, which falls under Negligence, Incompetence, False Advertising, Fraud, and probably a few other things I forgot about. Which could very reasonably result in a Class action Lawsuit against your Company. If someone wanted to make themselves Famous for Righting a Great Wrong that is.
So I suggest you make your Customer Service people a little bit nicer, especially if you created a bunch of BS for the Customer to start with. People do not like shitt that doesn?t WORK. Or doesn?t work the way it is suppose to.What can be done about it?
The Engineering people are trying to slowly Condition the Public to accept lower Standards in engineering, by giving the Customers this ?So what are you gonna do about it? pushy style attitude. The Republican Companies work with Republican Media to try to suppress any Reporting of this kind of stuff so the Public goes on acting Stupid and Accepting all the BS from all of these Educated Idiot Engineers who really don?t give a damnn about you, as long as they can drive home in their Brand New Hummer to their Big Cushy House, do you really think they care if you are sitting home have problems with your PC? Helll no!The only way to Change American Engineering is to Demand Higher Quality. That means Fire Everyone who is in Charge of Quality Control because they are not doing their Jobs, and maybe you ought to think about Hiring ME instead. The Distributors need to Demand Higher Quality as well, don?t buy it just because it is Cheaper, check it out, Test every Product you Sell on your Own Test Bench PC, and if the Part or Software is Junk, or Problematic, then don?t sell it. We should not Support Engineers who Create Problems for the Customer. And it is everyone?s Job to make sure these Engineers are producing Quality Products. It is the Supervisor?s Job, The Distributor?s Job, The Tech?s Job, The Media?s Job, and the Customer?s Job as well. Because as long as we keep Buying Junk, they will be more than happy to sell it to us. But once we stop buying Junk then the Engineers will be forced to Produce Quality Products with fewer Problems, and BETTER Customer Service. This should be our Goal.
Mark Evans
Topic is locked -
CreatorTopic
All Comments
-
AuthorReplies
-
-
November 15, 2006 at 7:42 am #3139493
A good rant, I should point out
by tony hopkinson · about 17 years, 4 months ago
In reply to The Deterioration of American Engineering
that us engineers are often hampered in the pursuit of quality by those who fund us’ pursuit of bottom line.
On the car front domestic american cars aren’t the only ones with that sort of ‘erm design feature.
The weird tool trick is a regular.My favourite was a spline key for the bolts on an exhaust manifold. Tool was about ?15 many years ago. After it just stripped three of the seven bolt heads, it got thrown away in disgust. Hacksaw and a large screwdriver solved that problem. And of course some hex studs so I could put it back together again !
-
November 20, 2006 at 4:32 am #3216233
But the worst of British engineering, Tony
by nicknielsen · about 17 years, 4 months ago
In reply to A good rant, I should point out
has to be the Lords of Darkness.
I owned a 1968 MGA for about a year back in the early 80s and cursed Lucas every time I had to open the hood, since it was usually for an electrical problem. But then, I was never able to get a proper manual, either. After 4 batteries and less than 5,000 km, I gave it up as a bad effort and sold the car.
-
November 20, 2006 at 6:05 am #3216197
Oh really
by elanse · about 17 years, 4 months ago
In reply to But the worst of British engineering, Tony
You bought an 12+ year old car and it had issues. Who would have though! Time to understand that it was more a problem with your expectations and get over it.
-
November 20, 2006 at 10:35 am #3279735
Don’t you like Nick or something ?
by tony hopkinson · about 17 years, 4 months ago
In reply to Oh really
If you are standing up for british automotive engineering excellence, you’re going bang your shins every time you get under the car.
Talbot Princess, now there was a piece of engineering, you could see it all once you brushed the rusty bodywork away.
-
November 26, 2006 at 1:34 pm #3290050
Obviously an MG fan
by nicknielsen · about 17 years, 4 months ago
In reply to Don’t you like Nick or something ?
but not an MG owner :p
-
November 21, 2006 at 9:57 am #3288774
You’ve pretty much hit the zone with 1968
by delbertpgh · about 17 years, 4 months ago
In reply to But the worst of British engineering, Tony
For quite a few decades, British automobiles and electricity just didn’t seem to get along. All the way up through the 1980s anything that had to do with wires just stunk for reliability. I hate to speak well of Margaret Thatcher, but once she made it possible to out-contract the electrical subsystems to the Germans, the pleasure of the English driving experience increased immensely.
-
-
-
November 15, 2006 at 7:50 am #3139491
From the other side
by jdmercha · about 17 years, 4 months ago
In reply to The Deterioration of American Engineering
It’s all about the money. A 10% increase in quality will add 90% more to the cost. A case in point is a nuclear power plant. You can buy a small valve for you home for $30. But if you want to use that same valve in a nuclear plant, and be sure that it is of the highest possible quality, it will cost you $300.
Designing products to a high quality is easy. Getting people to pay for them is very difficult. Otherwise everybody would have Stickley furniture in thier homes.
-
November 15, 2006 at 8:34 am #3139466
Agree completely
by tig2 · about 17 years, 4 months ago
In reply to From the other side
My father spent his life designing aircraft. One of his projects was a “jumbo” jet. The aircraft was initially developed for the military so mil spec was a requirement- very high quality. The problem was that the manufacturer lost money every time one rolled out of production.
This particular aircraft is considered to be one of the safest in the air. It is also so prohibitively expensive, no one can afford to fly it.
The engineers DO care about the quality of their work. But they don’t get to make all of the decisions. In the end, business decides what the quality level is.
From the perspective of Customer Satisfaction/Customer Service, I agree. We have become so accustomed to inferior service that we are thrilled to get mediocre service. Shame, really. I think we deserve better.
-
November 18, 2006 at 9:39 am #3219263
That doesn’t explain inconvenient placement.
by absolutely · about 17 years, 4 months ago
In reply to From the other side
A fuel pump can be located anywhere along the fuel line with no effect on cost. Selecting any location other than the one most convenient for the known necessity of replacement is…very telling.
-
November 18, 2006 at 2:45 pm #3219213
Cost is Why the Fuel Pump Is In the Tank
by thechas · about 17 years, 4 months ago
In reply to That doesn’t explain inconvenient placement.
The cost to manufacture the fuel pump and fuel system is precisely why the fuel pump is in the gas tank on nearly every fuel injected vehicle.
There are many cost factors that have lead to the fuel pump moving from the side of the engine to inside the gas tank.
1. Fire hazard. A slight leak in an in tank pump does not raise the risk of fire or explosion significantly. Thus, you don’t need redundant seals or other methods to prevent or contain leaks.
2. Cooling. The fuel in the gas tank cools the fuel pump allowing for a less expensive motor design. This is also why it is a very bad idea to let the level of fuel in the tank drop below 1/4.
3. Vapor Lock. If the fuel pump is external to the tank, the potential for vapor lock increases significantly.
4. Noise. The fuel in the tank and the isolation from having the pump in the tank reduces the audible level of the pump noise. Again, if the pump was external to the tank, it would need additional methods to keep the noise down to an acceptable level.
I’m sure that there are more reasons, but you get my point.
Even taking the above into account, cars should not be designed to make maintenance difficult.
As to why US cars do not have an access port to get to the top of the fuel tank from inside the car or trunk, cost is still the answer. It costs more to design and build with an access port. Plus, based on US automotive legal issues, what would happen the first time gas sprayed into a car through the port after an accident? Again, another cost.
Chas
-
November 18, 2006 at 2:50 pm #3219209
“costs more to design and build with an access port”
by absolutely · about 17 years, 4 months ago
In reply to Cost is Why the Fuel Pump Is In the Tank
Shirley, you can’t be serious!
The additional cost of a latch + a hinge would be a differnce of nickels in a product that costs $10,000+. Weak excuse.
-
November 19, 2006 at 6:36 am #3216393
Design Meetings
by thechas · about 17 years, 4 months ago
In reply to “costs more to design and build with an access port”
I don’t disagree with your comment. However have you ever participated in a product design, manufacturing, or cost review?
I have, and manufactures invest hours in reducing costs by fractions of pennies.
A repair access port would be considered a “feature”. As such, the cost to incorporate that feature would have to be less than the perceived value of the feature to the customer.
Since the vast majority of US new car buyers either lease or buy new cars every few years, the value to the customer would be nill.
If there is a trade off between reducing the assembly and liability costs versus making less work for the mechanic at some future time, lower manufacturing costs wins hands down.
I’ll take this cost debate a bit further. If you change the fuel filter more often than the recommended interval, your fuel pump will last a lot longer. The car manufactures set the maintenance interval as a cross between perceived upkeep costs and having the car last through the warranty period. If you cut maintenance intervals for any filter in the car in half, you will significantly lengthen the vehicle life.
Chas
-
November 20, 2006 at 4:50 am #3216227
Remember that the costs add up…
by dlpage · about 17 years, 4 months ago
In reply to “costs more to design and build with an access port”
…and stop calling me Shirley.
For a latch and hinge would cost a buck or two… For that one application. Now, think of all the other small things that could be bettered for a buck or two: better upholstry seams, higher tolerance fuel efficient engine, long life easy replace cam belt (if you have a 2000 VW Jetta you know what I mean), tougher buttons, better spring clips, longer wiring, better dashboard finishing, easier access fuses, ad nauseam… and bang; you have just added 3000 bucks to the car.
Remember also that the car can be robot built and the makers do not give a damn about sunday mechanics working on their cars with cheaper parts. Making the car more difficult to work on with special tools and car-specific parts guarantees that you have to maintain your car with a dealership and pay through the nose for it. It also guarantees that if you want to do it yourself, you have to purchase their premium cost parts. Win-Win for the manufacturer.
Still, it can pay to shop around. Here in France, there is a set of almost identical cars (identical platforms engines and electrics but slightly different body shapes) built in common by Toyota (the Aygo), Peugeot (the 107) and Citro?n (the C1): A part sold by Peugeot can be had for half the price with Toyota even though part is identical and even came of the same production line from the same machines in the same factory! This goes to show that a lot of the pain of home-maintaining your car is just sheer bloody-mindedness on the makers part.
That said, it would be nice for a maker to build a car with the design imperative “Ease of maintenance”, but then how could a garage justify their 1000 bucks/euros maintenance bills when 10-15 years ago, the samme operations came to one fifth of that…
-
November 19, 2006 at 9:32 am #3216385
Costs more
by ds4211a · about 17 years, 4 months ago
In reply to Cost is Why the Fuel Pump Is In the Tank
Re your title: Yes it costs a lot more to replace a fuel pump in the gas tank, which brings more revenue into the service department.
Re you points one by one:
1. I’ve had a lot of different cars over the years. I’ve never ever had a fuel pump catch on fire. So your comment is BS.
2. Mechanical fuel pumps were operated by a cam on the cam shaft. So this comment is also BS.
3. I realize that vapor lock did occur. But it rarely happened. But I had a battery go dead many times. So how about designing a battery that would let you know when it was going dead.
4. Noise. Give me a break. I’ve driven all kinds of older cars. Fuel pump noise was never a problem on any of them. More BS.
-
November 19, 2006 at 12:14 pm #3216370
Modern Fuel Injection
by thechas · about 17 years, 4 months ago
In reply to Costs more
First, all of my comments relate to modern fuel injected cars that have a high pressure electric pump. There is no BS or other information in my comments. These are all very REAL reasons why, from a design and cost to manufacture standpoint, the electric fuel pump is located in the fuel tank.
The old low pressure mechanical pump operated by the crankshaft worked well for cars with carburetors. But are useless with fuel injectors.
With a high pressure fuel pump, fuel leakage is a very real concern. If the fuel pump or line develops a leak, it would be a stream rather than a dribble. Spraying fuel over a hot electric motor would create a serious fire risk.
Talk with someone who was into racing their street car back in the 60’s. They all added electric fuel pumps near the fuel tank both to help the mechanical pump, and to prevent vapor lock.
Have you ever listened to a high volume, high pressure electric pump run? The whining high pitch noise of that pump would be objectionable to most car owners.
Yes, it would be possible to design an electric fuel pump that could be mounted outside of the fuel tank. But, how many people would pay and extra $500 to $1000 for that feature?
As to designing cars so they have high service costs, that is another “old wives tale”! The manufactures can’t afford the design effort to add service costs. Nor, would they want to shoulder the warranty repair costs of hard to service parts.
Now, there is some truth to the concept that cars (and many consumer products) are designed such that parts are only expected to last through the warranty period. But again, this is based on cost savings more than a plot to sell more products.
By the way, I have family members who have been dealer mechanics, design engineers, and parts suppliers. Plus, I have worked for companies that sell parts to the US auto industry.
The toughest part of the engineers job is not designing the product and it’s parts. It is balancing the cost to build the product versus the best overall design.
As I stated in another part of this thread, the best way to avoid high repair costs is to service your car more often. For the fuel system in particular, I recommend changing the fuel filter every 20,000 to 40,000 miles.
In relation to car batteries, they do let you know when they are getting weak and old. The engine turns over slower and takes longer to start. Plus, the headlights will dim when power accessories turn on. Battery manufactures have tried to market a few different methods of dealing with a weak battery. Know what? The US car owner won’t pay the extra money it costs for the “feature”.
All it takes to monitor the condition of your battery is a volt-meter and an amp-meter.
Watch the amp-meter while the engine is cranking and then again 10 minutes later. As the cranking current drops, and the charging current rises, the battery is getting weaker.
With the volt-meter, check the voltage in the morning, and watch it as you crank the engine. As the voltage drops, the battery is getting weaker.Chas
-
November 20, 2006 at 10:19 am #3279739
Well designed high-pressure fuel pump
by nocubes4me · about 17 years, 4 months ago
In reply to Modern Fuel Injection
As far back as 1978, one engineering firm managed to put into production an easily serviceable high-pressure fuel pump – Saab.
[QUOTE]
Remove the trunk floor plate (from inside the trunk or hatchback), and find the large, round, rubber plug covering the fuel pump and power lines to the fuel pump. Remove this rubber blanking plug to reveal the fuel pump.
With the fuel pump relay removed (from under the hood of the car – again, easily accessible and CLEARLY LABELLED – poster’s note and emphasis), unplug the two power leads and then unscrew the grounding strap retaining clamp.
With no special tools (maybe a rubber jar-gripper – poster’s note), twist the fuel pump assembly counter clockwise until it is free from its retaining threads. – CAUTION – the fuel pump may carry a small amount of fuel with it. Gasoline is highly flammable and the vapors are known to be toxic.
Again, with no special tools, insert the new fuel pump carefully so as not to misalign the threads. Screw in gently until finger tight and then tighten “once more” to ensure proper seal.
Reattach grounding strap, replace both power leads. Reseat rubber blocking plug.
Reinsert fuel pump relay.
NOTE:DO NOT START ENGINE
Cycle the ignition switch between positions 1 and 2 (ACC and Run) WITHOUT engaging starter repeatedly until “charge time” for fuel accumulators is less than three seconds. Once normal fuel line charge pressure is established, carefully remove rubber blocking plug and check for any sign of seepage from fuel pump seal. In the absence of leakage, replace blocking plug and reinstall trunk flooring plate.
Start engine and verify normal operations before attempting to drive the vehicle.
[/QUOTE](Translated from a 1978 Saab 99 shop manual.)
It’s simple, when properly designed. And if it’s not, then it’s properly designed simply for someone else’s revenue stream.
-
November 21, 2006 at 12:40 pm #3288726
Genius!
by justin carmichael · about 17 years, 4 months ago
In reply to Well designed high-pressure fuel pump
Well, I daresay. Where did you find this shop manual?
I LOVE IT!Thanks
Justin Carmichael
Student & Web Designer -
November 26, 2006 at 1:33 pm #3290051
Fuel pump access
by nicknielsen · about 17 years, 4 months ago
In reply to Cost is Why the Fuel Pump Is In the Tank
My ’95 Escort has a screwed-down port under the back seat that gives direct access to the fuel pump. Many other American cars have an equivalent. What stinks is that the pump retaining ring, which rotates atop the pump and under three tabs, warps very easily on removal and does not ensure a proper seal when replaced.
And nobody has touched on the primary reason high pressure fuel pumps are placed in or close to the fuel tank: it’s simply more efficient to push fuel at those pressures than to pull it.
-
-
November 19, 2006 at 7:59 am #3216390
Please explain
by kiltie · about 17 years, 4 months ago
In reply to From the other side
What is a “valve” in the context you use it?
-
November 20, 2006 at 10:05 am #3279744
Deliberate engineering
by nocubes4me · about 17 years, 4 months ago
In reply to From the other side
Having recently accepted that I won’t be working on much when it comes to any current vehicle, I’ll point out a few “deliberately engineered” features from recent makes I’ve worked on.
Nissan 3.0 V-6 SOHC- the valve cover has a retaining screw which cannot be removed without also removing the distributor housing/timing shaft.
Thinking I would outsmart this, I backed out the screw as far as it would go – until it impinged on the bottom of the distributor housing. Fully 3/4 of the screw threads remained in place. Had this single screw been drilled 1/4 inch to either side, removing the distributor would not have been necessary. Makes for a nice $300 fee to replace a $15 valve cover gasket, doesn’t it?
1999 Volvo S-80 (and up) – has a “disable” feature tying a small chip in the key (factory provided and dealership programmed) to the drive-by-wire engine management system. When the disable function is triggered, the fuel pump and iginition do not receive power, thereby disabling the car. After learning that “certain ambient transmissions may inadvertently trigger the disable function”, I asked three dealerships to disable or reprogram this function. No go. I then paid several thousand dollars for Volvo technical manuals in an attempt to learn enough to recode this little “security feature” myself. Short of designing a wholly new embedded instruction set, forget it.
Full-coverage insurance gives owners financial security – not stupid revenue-generating design flaws. Then again, having to pay $400 for a replacement key is definitely incentive to keep track of the two keys that came with the vehicle, isn’t it? Nice also to know that emissions from power transformers (on residential power poles) and some heavy equipment transponders can disable the car randomly. Pay attention to where you park that Volvo.
-
-
November 15, 2006 at 8:22 pm #3139337
Wrong Target
by thechas · about 17 years, 4 months ago
In reply to The Deterioration of American Engineering
As someone who has worked for a number of electronics manufacturing companies, I can attest that engineers are not the problem.
The vast majority of engineers that I have worked with are conscientious and work hard to provide the best solution to every design challenge.
So, why do we have products that don’t work and are hard to maintain?
The bean counters and management committees that make the decision as to how the product is designed and made are the problem.
Of course, they are lead by the demands of the customer for a specific set of features at a low cost.
Design decisions are made in favor of adding “features” over making the design more robust.
Quality decisions are made based on the odds of the product lasting through the warranty period.
More and more products are designed to be replaced rather than repaired. Mainly because it costs less to manufacture a product that cannot be taken apart.
Detroit still does not comprehend why the US consumer continues to choose foreign over domestic cars.
Chas
-
November 21, 2006 at 8:44 am #3279432
Managment IQ Fluctuations
by tgriffin33 · about 17 years, 4 months ago
In reply to Wrong Target
Whole heartedly agree with al you have said. We get in the race for featurs and sacrifice funtion for form… a long term recipe for disaster.
Ultimately, this IS a management/leadership mistake.
-
-
November 16, 2006 at 8:31 am #3202533
Got you beat on that fuel pump!
by dr dij · about 17 years, 4 months ago
In reply to The Deterioration of American Engineering
Mine cost $450 to replace. Would have cost even more but they got the wrong part in, thought it was pump for a smaller gas tank, and didn’t change the price they’d quoted me when found out it was more expensive pump.
Because they had to lower and drain the gas tank (sits on top). This isn’t a small mechanic’s price, was pep boys, national chain. Took all day. I missed picking up a display I had left at an exhibition, and it has disappeared for good now after calling them. (I can recreate it but not the point).
There is no gas filter separate because the gas pump in the gas tank has a screen. So I save on that 🙂 until the screen gets clogged and pump goes out again.. (was 100k miles so I guess that doesn’t lower its life expectancy).
Then after driving home, a few days later found can’t fill the gas tank. This because the newly installed pump is not making a seal, and in CA you must have seal to fill gas tank or filler hose clicks off. There are 5 or six other hoses connections at the pump, so I guess it is complicated.
The good thing about pep boys, is it is a national chain, so I didn’t have to drive to the store that fixed it 60 miles away. I took it to one local store, they don’t have the people or gear to fix it. Another local store tried. Biked into work, dropped it off. Picked it up and voila! I STILL can’t fill the gas tank! Well, back to the same store, and I’m getting healthier by the minute, biking into work. After 3 more days, someone was finally able to figure it out.
-
November 18, 2006 at 2:13 am #3219341
A very CORRECT observation not limited to US
by saaiebabak · about 17 years, 4 months ago
In reply to The Deterioration of American Engineering
Dear Mr. Mark,
Your observation is very correct. The definition of business has apparently changed. Business houses seemingly are forgetting morals everywhere on this earth. The products in general are so designed they do not have any inherent money value linked to product life. The products seemingly engineered to immediate appeal only. How big holes such products make in the pockets of consumers subsequently in terms of maintenance or product life cycle or durability or servicing and maintenance requirements, the business houses are not bothered. It has become a universal phenomenon, may be with few exceptions. MICROSOFT is already on these lines.
Thank you for writing such a good article.
Saaiebaba K
from INDIA -
November 18, 2006 at 2:18 am #3219340
A very CORRECT observation not limited to US
by saaiebabak · about 17 years, 4 months ago
In reply to The Deterioration of American Engineering
Dear Mr. Mark
Your observation is very correct. The definition of business has apparently changed. Business houses seemingly are forgetting morals everywhere on this earth. The products in general are so designed they do not have any inherent money value linked to product life. The products seemingly engineered to immediate appeal only. How big holes such products make in the pockets of consumers subsequently in terms of maintenance or product life or durability or servicing and maintenance requirements, the business houses are not bothered. It has become a universal phenomenon, may be with few exceptions. MICROSOFT is already on these lines with intentions to have full control even on home PCs.
Thank you for writing such a good article.
Saaiebaba K
from INDIA. -
November 18, 2006 at 5:27 am #3219313
Automotive engineering has changed
by nighthawk808 · about 17 years, 4 months ago
In reply to The Deterioration of American Engineering
because our standards have changed. It is no longer cause for celebration if a car breaks 100,000 miles; now it is simply the end of the break-in period. It is no longer acceptable to have a 450 cu. in. engine that gets 12 MPG in order to have a 300-hp car; now we expect 6-cylinder cars that get 25 MPG to have the same amount of power. It is no longer acceptable to blow whatever you want out of the tailpipe; now we expect extremely low emissions from our cars. Carmakers don’t make their cars more complex just because they’d rather pour billions of dollars into design rather than their shareholders’ accounts, they do it because times have changed and people expect more from their cars.
As for your Toyota, most cars (foreign or domestic) that are fuel injected have electronic fuel pumps that are located near the gas tank. This is not a set-in-stone rule, but it’s true more often than not. The fact that it was a Toyota has nothing to do with it.
Cars decades ago didn’t have fewer problems, they simply were able to run better when they did have problems. An old balky carburetor would chug along, albeit sluggishly. A modern balky fuel injection controller will tend to leave the car dead. However, fuel injection allows higher power while using less gas.
Today’s cheapest car runs much better than the best cars of the 1970’s when they are running the way they’re supposed to. Unfortunately, when they have problems, their added complexity also tends to make minor problems more severe. Like all engineering, there are tradeoffs involved.
I can tell you from experience that a 1946 Piper Cub is much easier to work on than a 1976 Cessna Skyhawk. Does that make the Cub a better plane? Of course not.
-
November 18, 2006 at 9:36 am #3219264
More to it than that, nighthawk.
by absolutely · about 17 years, 4 months ago
In reply to Automotive engineering has changed
Tradeoffs, of course, but the point of the fuel pump story was that the fuel pump is easier to access in the Toyota. The tradeoffs you named explain some differences between old American cars and new American cars, but don’t explain why the new American cars cited are so much more difficult to maintain than the author’s new Toyota. Simply put, Japanese car manufacturers are trying to increase profits by making the replaceable parts easy to access. American manufacturers evidently have adopted a different strategy.
-
November 20, 2006 at 7:25 am #3216162
Giving Mainstream Buyers What They Want
by johnnysacks · about 17 years, 4 months ago
In reply to Automotive engineering has changed
I don’t miss carburators, chokes, and ignition points but I blame marketers and mainstream American buyers for the decision that long term durability and maintainability take a back seat to bling. Now, instead of a product like a car being nothing more than the transportation appliance which it is, it’s a status symbol, sort of an upscale driveway decoration loaded down with electro mechanical garbage completely unrelated to what it’s core purpose is, getting from point A to point B. I’m forced to pay dearly to have windows, door locks, mirrors, seats, etc. jump at the touch of a button. I’m bombarded with ads vainly trying to convince me that sitting in a tin box pissing my life away (mostly getting to and from the job to pay for said tin box) could somehow either be a pleasant experience or provide me with some sort of immortality if I just spent more.
I need a cheap durable car, no explosive air bags (use a seat belt), no computer controlled electro hydraulic feedback system to handle braking (I pay dearly for accident insurance and anti-lock brakes don’t provide a thing if I’m driving too fast in the rain or on ice), no automatic transmission thank you (my feet and arms work fine and $800 is a lot to spend for shifting)
-
-
November 18, 2006 at 11:42 am #3219244
ABSOLUTE GOSPEL
by npbwbass · about 17 years, 4 months ago
In reply to The Deterioration of American Engineering
I absolutly agree! Our citizens think the world owes them a living. There is no pride in workmanship, no quality in customer service, and you are treated as a anoyance when you ask about anything. And for god’s sake where did the work ethics go?
Great article and point of view!
-
November 18, 2006 at 12:17 pm #3219241
You’re forgetting something !
by Anonymous · about 17 years, 4 months ago
In reply to The Deterioration of American Engineering
I know of plenty of capable, and HONEST engineers who would love nothing more than to spend time perfecting their designs. BUT, almost in every case, their schedules are dictated by their Sales/Marketing department. They are forced to either ship the product by a specific date, or say good-bye to their annual raise and bonuses, and oftentimes, their jobs.
The money-hungry corporations are the main cause of this quality problem that you have mentioned. They will work their employees to death, and expect them to perform consistently under pressure for the duration of their employment regardless of their employee’s deteriorating state of health (i.e., burn out).
Now you understand why there is less and less ‘company loyalty’ in today’s work environment. No one is willing to put in a 14 hours a day, six and sometimes seven days a week work ‘day’, on a standard 40 hour a week salary. The ‘management’ of these companies are in fact FORCING their engineers and developers to produce CRAP.
In such an environment, ‘quality’ will always take the back seat to profits. Sadly, this has become the American way.
-
November 19, 2006 at 12:09 pm #3216374
Put blame where blame is due
by jmgarvin · about 17 years, 4 months ago
In reply to The Deterioration of American Engineering
The whole problem is that we need to blame those that are at fault here. The marketing drones that push impossible products that aren’t yet made and the management that believes engineers can do anything.
I think the problem is that corporations aren’t run with proper R&D because, “there is no ROI in R&D.” We all know this isn’t true, but it seems management has bought into the myth. Also remember that management wants to make money off REPAIRS as well as sales. So if you have to drop the engine block to get at a spark plug, that’s just fine.
Take my 1970 VW Beetle. It’s pretty simple to work on (although Germans must have some small damn hands) and very easy to trouble shoot.
My 1998 Saturn is another story. I can’t replace the fuel filter without replacing the fuel pump…as it is all one assembly. So that means $200 plus labor…why labor? I can’t get the fuel filter off because I have to drop the engine. I don’t happen to have that kind of equipment. Who designed this? Not the engineers, but those managers that wanted to make money off repairs.
-
November 20, 2006 at 1:54 am #3216274
Totally Agree
by lancerjake · about 17 years, 4 months ago
In reply to The Deterioration of American Engineering
Blimey mate! you ever tried working on a Vauxhall Sintra(Chevvy Ventura)?
This one abomination of a car verifies All you Say! -
November 20, 2006 at 2:05 am #3216271
Too many combos, too little time.
by garydhart · about 17 years, 4 months ago
In reply to The Deterioration of American Engineering
As briefly as I can put it, when it comes to software and compatibility issues… it’s impossible to test your system against every possible variant of installed hardware components. And seriously, what NON-[mega ginormous software giants] have the money to do that anyway?
And sometimes problems can occur from the most unlikely of places.
For example:
One time when printing the graphical calendar report from our application, a client first experienced this issue where instead of the nice graphical calendar boxes, etc… the entire page came out as one big black rectangle. W-T-F???
Figuring out why this was happening got dropped on MY lap.
Long story severely shortened… it was the VIDEO driver being used that was causing this PRINTING problem.
The reason for this highly improbable scenario has to do with how Windows device-drivers, since these are low-level pieces of software bypass a lot of the normally enforced memory protection checks in place when writing an application.
My point is this… how the *BLEEP* could we POSSIBLY know to test for this kinda thing? Obviously we can’t.
ALSO…
The other reason why softwares can be kicked out the door without as thorough of a testing as you’d like to see them have is because the company needs to start having some revenue coming-in from this thing otherwise things no-looky so good on the bottom-line.
You don’t WANT to push it out the door… and you know you’ll need to be prepared to put out potential fires… but what can you do? No money coming in = no paychecks, capiche?
===
BTW.. with the car thing… I believe another problem sometimes stems from the actual physical difference in size of the engineers who are designing the them.
It could be that for the hands of the lil’ Japanese engineer, getting to that oil filter is no problem. However, sometimes the seemingly stupid places they put things are just because there’s no room anywhere else since the public’s likes, and striving for handling performance and parking congestion are forcing them to squeeze it all into a more streamlined package.
I feel your pain man, last year I had to remove the driver-side tire on my wifes car in order to access the stinkin’ battery for replacement. HELLO!!! Whose idea was THAT right? Well… the more I thought about it… and looked at the car… I realized that yeah, I guess they didn’t have all that much room in that engine compartment. But DAMN MAN… still…. it shouldn’t be installed someplace like that.
I feel your pain brother, but sometimes there are reasons for things we just don’t see at first.
-
November 20, 2006 at 4:30 am #3216234
Another software/hardware problem — users
by Anonymous · about 17 years, 4 months ago
In reply to Too many combos, too little time.
Generally, when an engineer designs a piece of software, he/she will try to imagine all the possible errors that a user could input, and then write error-trapping code for all of these possibilities. The only problem with this approach is that a software designer or other computer-savvy person cannot POSSIBLY imagine some of the foolish things that users can — and will — do.
For a few examples, check out this site:
http://www.rinkworks.com/stupid
-
-
November 20, 2006 at 3:03 am #3216262
Best rant, and It’s all TRUE!
by justin carmichael · about 17 years, 4 months ago
In reply to The Deterioration of American Engineering
Well Mark,
I simply don’t bother calling Customer Service anymore for the one fact -> They’re all IDIOTS.
Over here in the land of Australia, we don’t have much in the way of actual Aussie service, just those Indians which Microsoft and Telstra decide to give OUR jobs to.
It annoys the absolute CRAP out of me.
About a month back, I had a large WGA problem, where I had purchased a LEGAL COPY of Windows XP Professional, but it wouldn’t register as valid.
So what did I do? I gave Microsoft a call, only to have it routed over to bloody India! Customer Service couldn’t even speak a PROPER word of english, let alone help me with validating XP!
I fear it may be the same over in the USA… but one can never be too sure about this.
To hell with Customer Service.
-
November 22, 2006 at 2:52 pm #3290379
Reply to earlier question (Shop Manual)
by nocubes4me · about 17 years, 4 months ago
In reply to Best rant, and It’s all TRUE!
Sorry for the lag – I hadn’t checked back.
The shop manual was ordered from Saab about two years after buying the car (because the 900’s came out and I was concerned about no longer being able to get good information/service).
Invaluable, but cost over $1000 US at the time (1980-81).
-
November 25, 2006 at 7:58 pm #3290115
Brilliant
by justin carmichael · about 17 years, 4 months ago
In reply to Reply to earlier question (Shop Manual)
Thanks a bunch mate
-
-
-
November 20, 2006 at 3:24 am #3216251
Edsel vs Toyota
by drroogh · about 17 years, 4 months ago
In reply to The Deterioration of American Engineering
The Edsel started the whole American problem, it was a great car designed by well intentioned Engineers. Problem was it didn’t sell!!!! After that Marketing and Sales started making all the design decisions, and the pendulum never swung back. What do they know about design?
Also, in Japan Design Engineering is the pinnacle of an Engineers career. In America they hire kid’s right out of college and make them designers simply because they are good with the latest software, also Management doesn’t want any Engineers with experience in manufacturing and Quality seems they make to many waves and hold things up with redesigns. So Marketing can get the product out fast and garner the market.
I have a great deal of respect for Marketing when it is done right, but one of my designers for kicks started marking a check every time he heard a variation of a phrase in a marketing design meeting.
He stopped counting at 50.
The phrase? “I think”
What happened to “the customer thinks”?
Put the blame where it belongs, Management, Marketing, Sales, Quality, Engineering and Manufacturing.
And don’t forget the customer is to blame as well, because they supposedly are always right. If they were right they would have bought the Edsel and we would still have design in the hands of Engineers!!
-
November 26, 2006 at 2:39 pm #3290049
Edsel vs Toyota redux
by nicknielsen · about 17 years, 4 months ago
In reply to Edsel vs Toyota
The Edsel did, in fact, sell. The Edsel failed in part because Ford executives focused on the actual number of vehicles sold vice the target sales and did not take into account the greatly reduced sales throughout the automotive industry in 1957. Ford’s projections were for 200,000 models to sell, about 5% of the [u]1955[/u] market. 64,000 Edsels actually sold in a year in which overall Ford sales fell 48%.
-
-
November 20, 2006 at 6:44 am #3216178
You Need to Understand Product Development
by jjpengr · about 17 years, 4 months ago
In reply to The Deterioration of American Engineering
With over 36 years in engineering and product development focusing on test and reliability of products in 5 different industries, I find your whining reflects the general public misunderstanding of what engineers do and what is involved in new product development.
There are several major factors that have created the problems you have necountered with new products that are beyond the control of engineers doing the design and development. These include:
!. Continual compression of product development cycles. There is less and less time to find and correct problems before management decides to launch the product.
2. Continual cost cutting to make this quarter’s numbers and keep stock prices up so the big executives can retain the value of their stock options. This has resulted in cuts of engineering staffs and program budgets. That further rediuces resources to find and correct problems.
3. Increasing complexity of products results in more opportunities for defects and problems. That combined with the reduced time and resources make it far more difficult to field a product that is defect free.
So, don’t blame the engineers. Blame our short sighted executive management in most of America’s publicly held companies. The engineers have to work within the tightening contraints placed on them by management. That requires trade offs to be made, as much as we as engineers struggle to do what we can within the time and resources allocated to our projects.
-
November 20, 2006 at 9:53 am #3279748
As a Quality Assurance Engineer
by mdolan · about 17 years, 4 months ago
In reply to You Need to Understand Product Development
I?ve read this thread with some interest, being both a Quality Assurance Engineer and a pissed-of member of the public sick of wasting time and money on crappy products.
Here?s my rant:
I work in public transit. Trust me, being blessed/cursed with not only a strong work ethic but also the desire to see the environmental and social goals of transit fulfilled can be heartbreaking, given the current climate?
Like every business, whether you produce a service or a product, you must ask: ?What does the customer want??
In relation to transit, people want RELIABLE, convenient, safe, and clean buses, trains and stations. That means rolling stock with heat in the winter and A/C in the summer, wheelchair lifts that operate properly, elevators in stations that work, faregates that disgorge appropriate fare media instead of just taking your money, no breakdowns and delays, etc.
Transit QA people TRY AND TRY, with continual, persistent and forceful efforts, to get people in our industry to look at RELIABILITY. What is too often focused upon is car/bus count; get those buses and trains out the door in the morning. So what if they limp back in a few hours? Not exactly a focus on RELIABILITY there?It?s crazy, and crazy-making!
RELIABILITY in transit consists of both schedule adherence and keeping all systems in good working order. People should never be stranded by failures of rolling stock or infrastructure: derailments (arrggghhh!!); radiator leaks which necessitate the bus being towed and people to offload; a flat on a train which takes it out of service (yes, they get flats?flattened areas on the wheel which wind up giving a rough ride and damaging running rails); lights burned out so you can?t even read signage; lifts not working and escalators down so people with limited mobility get stranded; etc.
How do we get to real RELIABILITY? Not by cutting costs, which is virtually all we (transit professionals) have heard for the majority of my career (29 years now).
Folks, please take my word for it; we?re already about cut to the freakin? bone, as I know from my own experience and those of people in the industry nation-wide who I communicate with
.
Furthermore, we are frightfully constrained in product/service acquisition. Why. Sure, it?s due to a combination of factors. But first and foremost, the fact that we are forced by law (almost across the board) to take the low bid?for everything.Low bid: for new buses, for computer replacements, for spare parts, for uniforms, for cleaning solutions, for specialized tools, for contracted-out maintenance, et al.
The U.S. Military once upon a time was burdened with this same constraint. But they no longer take the low bid?they discovered how often it becomes horribly, lethally clear just what you?ll be getting for the (initially) lowest price.You can write the tightest spec imaginable (altho yes, we don?t always do a good job of that). But if the low bidder SAYS they can provide equipment with a reliability of 99.938% (an actual figure I?ve reviewed) and Legal says their bid is in order?guess what? We must buy that product.
If it?s crap or performs piss-poorly?guess what? We?re stuck with it, and our people simply have to try to make do. (Sure, get the lawyers involved to enforce performance specs?see where that gets you. And meanwhile, back at the ranch?)We make do with aging equipment for which spare parts are no longer manufactured, and replacement stock has long ago been exhausted. We make do with equipment which never performed to spec, and as it ages, performance degradation only accelerates.
Oh yes?we also try to make do when many of our best, talented, diligent and brightest engineers, mechanics, operators, controllers, etc. get sick of all the political crap and the low pay, and find more lucrative and less stressful employment elsewhere. (You must always be mindful of the fact that people?s lives are literally riding upon what you do; transit is not a sound card which can fail and only frustrate a person.)
But does anyone want to (gasp) actually increase funding to transit? Does anyone want to fight to change ?low bid? to ?fully mission capable? or whatever? Does anyone want to increase the salaries of people who have assumed double or triple duty, now that colleagues have either left for greener pastures or been ?riffed? in cost cutting measures?
Our original ranter said: ?The only way to Change American Engineering is to Demand Higher Quality.?
That?s quite true. And to achieve that Holy Grail almost invariably means more money spent and more time invested in nurturing your company/product/service.
And across the board in this country, the focus on growing your company and seeing benefits down the road as opposed to immediately has given way to the myopic and avaricious obsession with immediate profits; massive CEO financial incentives given for chain-sawing skilled, experienced workers out; fabulous tax breaks for shipping work overseas; and consumers being quite resistant to paying more for a higher quality product.Does any change in the utterly transmogrified way we presently do business seem forthcoming in today?s climate? (I?m reminded of a poem by Dorothy Parker, where she waxes rhapsodically about living in a best of all possible worlds where needs are met and people act honorably, and ending with the line ?And I am Marie of Romania.?)
Our original ranter said ?Fire Everyone who is in Charge of Quality Control because they are not doing their Jobs, and maybe you ought to think about Hiring ME instead.?
Yeah. Come work with me for a week, honey. See the almost Dante-esque conditions under which we labor. Experience a recalcitrant work culture so resistant to any change that you fantasize being issued a bottle of super-strength Prozac on your desk to wave off those suicidal feelings and a giant tube of lube to make you-know-what easier to submit to.Bang your head against the wall when you hear over and over ?There isn?t any money in the budget?? Live on your salary which was FROZEN for FOUR years (plus enduring the unpaid furloughs) because ?there isn?t any money.? (Want documentation on that? I?ve got it.)
You might ask, ?Why stay, when yes, an ASQ Certified Quality Auditor with Six Sigma training such as yourself could leave and make (much) more money? ?
Well, not only am I close to retirement (probably way closer now that this thing appeared); but I still, despite everything, believe in two fundamental tenants:
1. Environment: We have to get people out of their cars if we want breathable air, and a slow-down in denuding our lands and covering them with heat-retaining asphalt. Not only is this a form of climate change, but it inevitably renders the land incapable of absorbing flood waters–vitally important functions of wetlands and trees. We can only destroy plants which take in carbon and output oxygen, and take so much ozone destruction and green-house gas emissions?
2. Society: Transit is socially necessary. Consider this: everyone who currently drives THINKS they?ll be able to drive forever, until death do you part this life. But if you consider things realistically, we?re all potentially one car wreck, one stray bullet, one onset of macular degeneration, one chronic illness, etc. away from having to rely on some other form of transportation. Plus, people without cars right now still need to go to jobs, the doctor, grocery stores, recreational facilities, etc.
Our original ranter said ??(I)t is everyone?s Job to make sure these Engineers are producing Quality Products. It is the Supervisor?s Job, The Distributor?s Job, The Tech?s Job, The Media?s Job, and the Customer?s Job as well.?
Quite true. Transit can do a better job of implementing that; but most of us know it in our bones, and many of us put our shoulders to the Karmic Wheel to try to move in that direction.
But what are we (customers) truly willing to throw into this effort?
Yes, not buying shabby products is part of it.
?Exposing? bad quality and bad customer service is another.But how do we nudge the culture beyond the current state, with its money-mad emphasis, and hell with the jobs and lives of the non-rich?
And am I a Commie who thinks ?Profits are Evil?? No. Rather, I?m a concerned citizen who (naively, I suppose) believes we all have a stake in what is happening to this country.The words of Mr./Ms. Jpaschkewitz (the Engineer/Product Development professional who added 2 cents on 11/20) certainly resonate for me.
Particularly the malevolence and iniquities inherent embodied within this stated concept:
?Continual cost cutting to make this quarter’s numbers and keep stock prices up so the big executives can retain the value of their stock options. This has resulted in cuts of engineering staffs and program budgets. That further reduces resources to find and correct problems.?In the discipline of Quality, we learn two important things early on:
1. ?Build Quality into the front end. It is much cheaper, less painful, and easier than going back to try to rectify things which might have/could have been caught in the beginning.? (Think Boston?s ?Big Dig? for an example. They?re actually lucky they only killed one person?)
2. ?What gets measured is what gets rewarded.? Go anywhere you like from there. It always comes down to this. If you reward based on how many widgets go out the door, Quality becomes an impediment because units might be held back. If you reward based on this quarter?s profits, then that?s what will be concentrated upon. If you reward on how many patients you can see in a day, then the entire staff will be dedicated to ensuring that people will get maybe two minutes with the doctor after waiting for the other 24 people who were ALSO scheduled at 10 o?clock. If you reward based on customer satisfaction?however determined?than that is where the focus will be.Do I care about what the focus is when I buy a program to keep viruses off my computer or a loofa brush fastened to a handle (enables me to scrub my back in the shower)?
Actually, I do, even if not consciously. (BTW, when the handle kept pulling out of the loofa shortly after I purchased it, I took the unit to the garage, and screwed two small metal strips into the wood. They keep the handle in place nicely. But will I EVER buy another loofa unit from that company? Not hardly)Well, I suppose a summation is in order here?assuming anyone has read this far. I apologize for the length, but I just had to get it all out there.
Ultimately, Quality is whatever the customer perceives it to be. If you?re in business, you have to provide something that the customer regards as a Quality product, or people don?t want to do business with you.
Sometimes they have no alternative:
No car = take transit.
No health insurance = charity hospital waiting rooms or no treatment at all.
No job = feed your family however you can.
But when you have a choice:
Having a car = seeing if your city?s service is convenient and reliable, and deciding whether to hop onboard
Buying a new computer = reading reviews, making comparisons, checking service ratings
Having decent-paying employment = no hunger and maybe going out to eat when the mood strikes
etc.Hey–don?t necessarily blame the Quality, Design etc. Engineers. It is quite possible that they are doing the best the can under dreadful constraints.
M. H. Dolan
-
November 20, 2006 at 10:59 am #3279727
Why All The Complaining About Automobiles
by donaldcoe · about 17 years, 4 months ago
In reply to You Need to Understand Product Development
I am a Information Technologies professional keen to read about the future design, fixing and redesign steps to improve computer performances and associated support software applications NOT the American Automobile Industry.
Lets be honest NO One wants a fix to the issue of Engineering Perfection, because if is working properly it (whatever you apply in this scenario) will only SALE ONE TIME and will never need or get an upgrade until after a total failure, thus Bad for Business. The Perfection era was the 1950’s where everything was designed simple, No Frills and EZ to fix.
I feel fortunate to have been born in the early 50’s (oh yah tellin my age), to be able to see, use and learn the transition from the Do It Yourself (buy-build-redesign era)with Radio Shack Heathe Kit radio or TV electronics projects to today’s It’s Cheaper to Buy a New One than to fix it mentality. Though great for learning tools but bad for long-term and continuous money making business ventures. We as a society have evolved in the Breaking of Things That Aren’t Broke mentality and the Wants for Everything Perfect. Either we complain that it never breaks or that it is always broke, no one is ever 100% happy. I too Do Not Blame the Engineers, but also Do Not blame the Executive Management for wanting to make money either. I just accept the Fact That Everything Man Made Has A Flaw some being harder to find than others, it’s all about your level of resource. I am happy with expectation of a little flaw.
-
-
November 20, 2006 at 8:07 am #3216145
Question?
by now left tr · about 17 years, 4 months ago
In reply to The Deterioration of American Engineering
Do you test your website creation on every hardware / software / driver / plugin combination available?
NO – well then!
-
November 20, 2006 at 8:44 am #3279768
I am Gay and Christian and this is so true.
by 2shane · about 17 years, 4 months ago
In reply to The Deterioration of American Engineering
Yeah, I liked this artical, it’s a premium winge, with inteligence and depth.
I recently bought a OZITO brand engraver / tiny die grinder with an extension cable / grinding head. The friction between the power cable and the sheath was so high that the plastic eventually melted.. and the sheath split open..
I worked around the friction issue with some teflon based lube and copper paste… and the RPM sort of effectively doubled..
But to be putting products out that really run like shit, with crap parts and Quality Control.
Same goes for Microskoff. In some ways I am really greatful for this company and it’s achievements…. but they have also released software that is utter garbage… like 95 and 98 and millenium for intstance.
And I have lost so much time and data as a result of thier garbage OS’s, the crashes they habitually had and while I may have paid X amounts of $$$ for them, the fact remains, that had MS been required to compensate me for my time and the lost data, that their crapware had created, then MS would have been into me for probably $15,000 for 98 alone.
Recently I picked up a brand new blender sealed in it’s box at the Opp Shop, and I gave it a whirle….
The trouble is that the drive dogs between the motor and the blender, were both made of a low melting point plastic, and they were really undersized for the work that I required of it…..
The unit is described as a juicer / blender..
My idea of juice is a big handfull of carrots, not 10 strawberries, a scoop of ice cream and 2 glasses of milk…
And the drive dogs melted and shredded to bits.
So I hassled the company and they tried to bullshit their way out of it.
So I will hold them accontable through lawful means.
I am also thoughtful of the aircraft industry creating aeroplanes, that because of the assembly techniques, cannot be inspected through out much of their structure, because they have not designed them to be serviced by people… they just can’t get inside the sections…
Well Duhhhhhh..
And now some sections of the aircraft manufacturers were lauding it on just how really clever they are, for having designed a computerised human simulation, that they can make get inside the parts and sections, to see if it can be serviced by a real person.
I also had a kind of online / correspondane fight with an idiot rep from the Aldi company who ONLY had HAZCHEM data sheets for their cleaning products (not advertised anywhere), from them, at their office, during office hours, on a long distance phone line or via fax.
Now the dumb arse who declared their “bath and shower cleaner” that should not be used in confined spaces, with rubber gloves, that shines grungy chrome right up till it sparkles, and dissolves the crap in the bathroom with relative ease; well she declared it to be completely safe…
I thought Yeah… “I’d like to make you drink a whole bottle of it and then sit back and see what happens…”
Put the hazchem data sheets for their own products up on their websites…? No way. Cause that is just too fucking easy.
(Ohhhh angry angry angry…)
It also reminds me of stupid people who design stuff like locking knife blades, on pocket knives….
It’s not the idea of a locking blade, and it’s not all the people who design them… it’s only the stupid bastards who design really shitty locking blade mechanisisms, that under a bit of stress, unlock, and the blade folds up to slice your fingers…
And loving this.. I really think most of the people who design the stupid cheap shit “butterfly” can openers should be kicked for both badly designing them, making them out of crap materials and making such a monumental waste of resources….
I got so sick of the crap material and engineering in them, that I eventually said “Fuck them” and I bought a really good “Swing Away” can opener of the skylab fame, and I have never bought or used a cheap shit garbage can opener since.
So I really hate stupidity and bullshit head games, obscurfated information and badly designed “anythings”.
“You can’t outlaw plain stupidity, but you can help eliminate it from the gene pool.”
Shane Hanson 2006
-
November 20, 2006 at 11:20 am #3279721
What does that have to do with anything?
by jamesrl · about 17 years, 4 months ago
In reply to I am Gay and Christian and this is so true.
I can’t for the life of me see a connection between your sexual preference, your religion and the “decline” of engineering.
James
-
November 20, 2006 at 11:47 am #3279711
????????????????
by chas_2 · about 17 years, 4 months ago
In reply to I am Gay and Christian and this is so true.
Shane, good for you, but your subject title doesn’t relate to your discussion.
Interesting non-sequitur, though…
-
November 20, 2006 at 8:30 pm #3279562
ROFLCOPTERS
by mindilator9 · about 17 years, 4 months ago
In reply to I am Gay and Christian and this is so true.
i get you shane. everyone takes themselves too seriously to see that you are mocking the author but it was obvious. he had a good point but ruined it by being mad. i understood why he had all those car repair parables. (car repairables?) it makes sense, it’s bad design and it affects the end user responsible for taking care of his product.
but he lost me at the part where his rant turned onto the whole writing letters to managers crap. that’s stupid. i suppose you’re going to email him right there in the store from your pda. nobody is that pissed off by the time they get home and has friends. some things you just need to get over. be mad at bad engineering yeah but blame it on the service rep? there’s reasons why he’s a service rep and we’re industry professionals. and one of those things that should be separating you from him is being professional.
to accomplish your goal you shouldn’t be foaming at the mouth to the choir. you need to write out a well thought dissertation and present it to places like MIT and other reputable entities that teach engineering from the top down. write a book that isn’t vitriolic and you may capture the right people’s attention. if you just blog a rant here all you’re gonna get is guys like shane rippin on you.
-
November 25, 2006 at 1:04 pm #3290138
LA VIDA LOCA AND RICKY MARTIN
by xentity · about 17 years, 4 months ago
In reply to I am Gay and Christian and this is so true.
This discussion was not started by Ricky Martin. You’ll need to post to another thread.
-
December 15, 2006 at 3:34 am #2502746
Bad Engineering and Jesus.
by 2shane · about 17 years, 3 months ago
In reply to I am Gay and Christian and this is so true.
Jesus loves you and Jesus loves me.
I also happen to love Jesus.
Jesus and I are so in love that we are engaged to get married, and I have a nice dress picked out for Him – cause Jesus is My Bitch.
And cause god gave the word to me, I am now god.
John|10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said,
Ye are gods?
John|10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and
the scripture cannot be broken;So therefore as the supreme being, the master engineer and grand know it all, I know everything.
Therefore my sexuality, my religion and my engineering expertise all tie in neatly together.
Rather simple really.
-
December 15, 2006 at 3:40 pm #2502548
Head around this one
by justin carmichael · about 17 years, 3 months ago
In reply to Bad Engineering and Jesus.
Well, this is one of the more… different responses I’ve seen in a long time.
Yet still, it works?
Good work man.
-
December 15, 2006 at 5:46 pm #2502515
Say WHAT???
by the_webninja9 · about 17 years, 3 months ago
In reply to Bad Engineering and Jesus.
I studied Religion and Philosophy, and Several areas of applied Science, but I think ya lost me on that one.
I’m not quite sure if you are trying to be sarcastic, or if you just wandered off into your own little world there.
But being that we are ON the Subject of Engineering, and you seem to brought Religion into the Mix, lets Talk about Religious Engineering, being that the Majority of Religion IS created BY MAN.
You Quote the Bible, as if you Believe in it as some sort of True Teaching.
How about the First Section where is Quotes: “there was Adam and Eve and Cain and Abel, Cain Killed Abel, then went off to TOWN to find himself a wife.” There was no Town. Unless of course the very foundation of Christian Scriptures Contradicts itself- which it does.In Order for the Noah Story to be True, everyone would have to be the Same Race now, cause the whole world was suppose to be Covered with Water right? And speaking of Engineering, have you ever Mathematically figured the number of Species, the Space Required for each Animal (Including all those which were not yet extinct during that time period,) and Space for Fresh Water, Food, and the Waste for each Animal? And Exactly how did Noah Get all those animals into the Boat with a Whistle? How long would it take YOU to catch one Wild Squirrel?
Now you calculate all that space and you will find it is Physically Impossible to build a boat large enough EVEN TODAY to hold all the Animals in the World.Now lets talk about the Social Engineering Patterns in the Bible- The Entire Religion is based on Hatred and Contempt of all others. “Sinners” “Guilt” Religion by Force, Degrading Women, Condoning Slavery, Stoning someone to death for working on Sunday, Hating Gays, Hating Blacks, (KKK) and the basic Principals are to live in Misery waiting to Die to go to Heaven to have your Dreams Fulfilled in Heaven- What kind of Logic is THAT? Makes anything Fun considered “Lewd Behavior”? Oppresses every other Religious Philosophy with things such as “Thou Shalt have no other God before me” Promote Killing people in Holy Wars, Oppressing people by passing Christian Laws forcing all others to live as Christians- What kind of Shitt is THAT?
Christianity therefore is not only a LIE, it has been PROVEN to be one of the Most Dangerous Religions ever Practiced on the face of this Earth, everywhere Christians Travel they have left a Trail of Death Behind them and Oppression, and Coercion in front of them. More than 9 Million people died during the times of the Witch Trials alone! Not to mention how many people in every Third World Country who practiced different Religions before the Christians came along. And Muslims are not any Better, but that is a whole other Story.
So I guess maybe we should Re-engineer our thinking about Religion as well huh? Being that you brought the subject up that is.
-
December 15, 2006 at 5:47 pm #2502513
Say WHAT???
by the_webninja9 · about 17 years, 3 months ago
In reply to Bad Engineering and Jesus.
I studied Religion and Philosophy, and Several areas of applied Science, but I think ya lost me on that one.
I’m not quite sure if you are trying to be sarcastic, or if you just wandered off into your own little world there.
But being that we are ON the Subject of Engineering, and you seem to brought Religion into the Mix, lets Talk about Religious Engineering, being that the Majority of Religion IS created BY MAN.
You Quote the Bible, as if you Believe in it as some sort of True Teaching.
How about the First Section where is Quotes: “there was Adam and Eve and Cain and Abel, Cain Killed Abel, then went off to TOWN to find himself a wife.” There was no Town. Unless of course the very foundation of Christian Scriptures Contradicts itself- which it does.In Order for the Noah Story to be True, everyone would have to be the Same Race now, cause the whole world was suppose to be Covered with Water right? And speaking of Engineering, have you ever Mathematically figured the number of Species, the Space Required for each Animal (Including all those which were not yet extinct during that time period,) and Space for Fresh Water, Food, and the Waste for each Animal? And Exactly how did Noah Get all those animals into the Boat with a Whistle? How long would it take YOU to catch one Wild Squirrel?
Now you calculate all that space and you will find it is Physically Impossible to build a boat large enough EVEN TODAY to hold all the Animals in the World.Now lets talk about the Social Engineering Patterns in the Bible- The Entire Religion is based on Hatred and Contempt of all others. “Sinners” “Guilt” Religion by Force, Degrading Women, Condoning Slavery, Stoning someone to death for working on Sunday, Hating Gays, Hating Blacks, (KKK) and the basic Principals are to live in Misery waiting to Die to go to Heaven to have your Dreams Fulfilled in Heaven- What kind of Logic is THAT? Makes anything Fun considered “Lewd Behavior”? Oppresses every other Religious Philosophy with things such as “Thou Shalt have no other God before me” Promote Killing people in Holy Wars, Oppressing people by passing Christian Laws forcing all others to live as Christians- What kind of Shitt is THAT?
Christianity therefore is not only a LIE, it has been PROVEN to be one of the Most Dangerous Religions ever Practiced on the face of this Earth, everywhere Christians Travel they have left a Trail of Death Behind them and Oppression, and Coercion in front of them. More than 9 Million people died during the times of the Witch Trials alone! Not to mention how many people in every Third World Country who practiced different Religions before the Christians came along. And Muslims are not any Better, but that is a whole other Story.
So I guess maybe we should Re-engineer our thinking about Religion as well huh? Being that you brought the subject up that is.
-
December 17, 2006 at 2:30 am #2501234
Admit it.,, your just jealous.
by 2shane · about 17 years, 3 months ago
In reply to Say WHAT???
Your just jealous that my girl friend has a neato beard and yours hasn’t.
-
-
-
November 20, 2006 at 11:37 am #3279714
It’s a board-of-directors/executive/management problem
by chas_2 · about 17 years, 4 months ago
In reply to The Deterioration of American Engineering
Excellent rant. I just had to “fire” AT&T recently because they hosed my dial tone and DSL service erroneously. Their database and/or switching equipment had the wrong apartment number matched to mine so when something happened at the other apartment, mine was affected. They have 180,000 employees and a CEO that makes $9 million and they couldn’t tell me what the problem was. EEE-DE-OTT’S!!!!
I don’t think engineering is at the base of the problem you describe, although there are some, no doubt, who look for ways to burnish their own credentials or assure their job security by creating Byzantine solutions. It seems to me the real problem is upper-level and/or executive management. I have worked in I-T for most of 21 years and one thing the rank and file just hate is how decisions are made above them.
If you have a board of directors or upper-level management team that’s thinking of profit first and satisfying the customer, oh, NINTH, then design decisions to “protect” their business are gonna be what you see – the hard-to-reach auto parts you mentioned being a perfect example.
I once had a discussion with someone else about this. What’s the first purpose of a business? Most people would probably say the answer is, “To make money”. I say, wrong. The first purpose of any business is to solve a problem (efficiently) and/or meet a need. Businesses that do an especially effective job of solving problems are THEN rewarded over and over again with profits. Sure, a business that produces crap may make profits … in the short run. Over the long run, though, a sort of evolutionary theory takes over – such poorer executing businesses that don’t adapt die out. (Anyone remember ColecoVision or Intellivision? Didn’t think so. Google either of ’em if you’re curious.)
Look at Toyota Corporation. People in the U.S. market have been wanting high-mileage, low-maintenance cars for years from the likes of GM, Chrysler and Ford. Toyota’s managment allowed their engineers to turn out quality products year after year. That’s why Toyota’s in a position to overtake GM as the #1 auto maker, and protectionist policies won’t help GM. While GM’s cars have improved (I have driven three in 20 years) they still fall short of what Toyota, Honda, et al deliver. (Now, in all fairness, I’m sure Toyota engineers have frustrations of their own but the point is, they’re relatively freer to turn out a better product than their Big-Three counterparts.)
Microsoft is in a similar situation. For all the good that they’ve given us in standardizing how we interact with computers, their products still have numerous problems (anyone else tired of having to do a reboot after the third “security update” in a week?). The Microsoft board thinks primarily in terms of how to maximize shareholder profit, which may NOT include how to turn out the best product. I think Microsoft would rather, as its modus operandi, turn out a product and let the public function as a sort of beta test rather than biting the bullet and holding it back and spending more time (and money) getting more bugs out. (Microsoft, of course, has its own pressures from the I-T press, stock analysts and, to a certain extent, tech enthusiasts hungry for The Next Big Thing.)
So while I agree with you that engineers may fall short on execution, the real blame lies with their big bosses – the folks that define a company’s culture (which includes a commitment to excellence, a system of accountability, and a way of empowering its employees). An engineer can screech at the top of his/her lungs, “This isn’t the way this should be designed!!!” but if the guy/gal signing that person’s paycheck says, “Do it that way or I’ll find someone else that will”, what’s an engineer with a family and a mortgage to do?
-
November 20, 2006 at 1:13 pm #3279686
complex issues
by xentity · about 17 years, 4 months ago
In reply to The Deterioration of American Engineering
I agree with you about quality. I believe that the greatest superpower in the world’s history has some sort undercurrent that is draining quality away. I believe the source of this problem is complex.
1. Innovation is leaving the United States. A glance at who publishing research indicates that a vast majority of research is being conducted overseas. It this research that is the basis of creating necessity and necessity drives markets and products. Because this is coming from overseas, the work ethic and character of business is somewhat different leading to a different quality standards.
2. Products are becoming increasingly sophisticated. Design has become democratized. 1000’s or more people contribute to the design of products and there is a consensus on what that product should be. With this sophistication comes exponentially increased quality challenges. Early defects can be become amplified introducting higher order outcomes that are difficult to trace down the origin.
3. Engineering economics and business profitability can have adverse effects on the quality of a product. Minor changes in materials and manufacturing processes can dramatically alter life expectancy and performance of product. Often decisions are made to change a process or material in order to remain competitive but that very same decision often is at the cost of market share.
These kinds of things and others play into quality big time. In the end, it could cost the United States its place in the World Order as competitive Nations flourish because they essentially were able to set the standards that the market desired independent of being held captive to the grander state and how it drives its business factors.
-
November 20, 2006 at 2:15 pm #3279657
Don’t blame all the real engineers.
by kwkrueger · about 17 years, 4 months ago
In reply to The Deterioration of American Engineering
Mark,
One of the big problems I have today is with certain individuals who are given the title Engineer. I work for an aerospace company and due to the desire to save money on manpower we are giving some individuals the title who have no right to it. We have theatre arts majors, individuals with sociology degrees, physicists, and even people with English degrees being given the tile Engineer. Why are they given these titles? Many times they are related to someone else in the company, they will work cheap, or they are just too physically pretty for the management to turn away from a job. We recently had a “Women in Engineering” conference in the area and less than half of the attendees actually had an engineering degree or the equivalent experience required to put them any where near worthy of the title. Now don’t think I am picking on just women, this is just an example. When I first graduated, I did not even consider myself an engineer yet; I knew I had a lot to learn. I personally did not feel like an engineer until I had at least five years and a string of several successful designs under my belt. Today in our short-term world we must have everything right now, but experience is the one thing that is not instantaneous and never will be.
The other problem real engineers have is the desire for companies to save money. We have a saying that goes like this; “There is no amount of money we won’t spend to save a dime.” Unfortunately with all the latest buzzword BS fads like 666 Sigma this is not unusual in high-tech industries. I have worked on programs where leaving out a $3.00 part has saved $200,000 dollars overall on a program, but in the long-run cost the program over $2,000,000, however; someone received an award for saving the $200,000, but ne’er a word was spoken of the after effects. I am lucky that in my present position on the present program I work on, a calculated over-design on my part does not raise any eyebrows, as the equipment our team puts out has a history of outlasting any effort it is needed on (5+ years) and some of the equipment does not live in a very friendly environment. I could give you dozens of examples of great companies who used to carry great products that gave great service that have long since lost it, but due to the fact I do not have an unlimited legal defense fund, I will not list specific names.
There is also the issue now of our engineering curriculum, at least here in the US. We now have cookbook mindset when it comes to educating engineers. We must look at the reason this is. As usual one of the big drivers is money. Education is big business now and the schools want to have full classrooms and want to give industry what they want and of course, it must be done quickly. The answer is to then teach engineers how to use the latest tools to do the grunt work engineers used to be able to do at least partially by hand. We have software to analyze circuits, help us with control systems, and a myriad of those other nasty tasks we used to have to at least think a little bit about. So the school plays up to the vendors whose software is most popular for CAE/CASE and the company gets a tax write-off for providing student versions of the software and gets free advertising to boot. Industry gets individuals who know the latest popular software that will help then design everything from a light-bulb to a complex imaging processing algorithm. We are so busy looking at all the winners we fail to see we are not teaching the students the basics anymore. Ask a recent graduate in EE/ECE what a ground-loop is and see if you get a coherent explanation that indicates the individual really has a grasp of the idea.
I apologize for standing on my soap-box for so long, but it is frustrating for myself and many of my colleagues who find experience is not valued anymore, but “networking'(not in the computer communication sense) and pseudo-socialization skills are. There are young graduates who are fine and they do get the real import of what it means to be an “ENGINEER”, but many of them give up to play the game so they can get ahead in the corporate world where a grand title that gets you more money is better than integrity and job satisfaction built on a foundation of solid knowledge and a great work ethic. -
November 21, 2006 at 7:57 am #3279451
Right On!
by tgriffin33 · about 17 years, 4 months ago
In reply to The Deterioration of American Engineering
Americans get so squeezed for making money this quater and delivering the miricle d’jour that tey loose sight of the basics of function. (Remember form FOLLOWS function) Quality – that is meeting and exceeding CUSTOMER expectations wins in the long run. Unfortuantely, we live in a age o fquick fixes that combine to create the engineering disaster that is America – I fear that my home land is loosing its ability to compete in many many markets.
Lord help us….
T3 -
November 21, 2006 at 9:49 am #3288776
Grumbling, complaining, a few minutes & a big smile
by delbertpgh · about 17 years, 4 months ago
In reply to The Deterioration of American Engineering
I started to wonder, reading your piece and its comparison of good engineering to good sex:
You don’t work on your wife the way you work on a car, do you? ‘Cause it takes a little different technique. They don’t tune up the same.
-
November 21, 2006 at 1:27 pm #3288718
It’s a multi-fold problem.
by jneilson · about 17 years, 4 months ago
In reply to The Deterioration of American Engineering
Part of the problem is with upper management, those penny pinching accountants that run the show, part of is the engineering management, some of whom have never engineered anything in there lives and the rest goes to the engineers themselves.
The younger engineers it seems have been brainwashed through schooling maybe to believe that they will just tell others what to design, but I’m not really sure of what is taught in engineering school but from what I’ve seen it isn’t how stuff is really manufactured.
Engineering managers, who sighoff on new designs sometimes base their parts supplier requirements on who gives them the most free tee-times and upper management wonders why the company even produces any kind of product at all, after all that can be outsourced. -
November 26, 2006 at 8:42 am #3290064
Unfortunately, the Engineers aren’t the problem…
by mikebertie · about 17 years, 4 months ago
In reply to The Deterioration of American Engineering
Having been in the software industry for over 20 years, I can tell you where the problem lies….at the corporate / senior management level. The thinking goes something like this…
Finding and fixing all the problems and making a near perfect solution will NOT sell more product, it only costs more time. In fact, developing and solidifying a solution to the 80% – 85% level takes relatively little time, and the cost/benefit ratio is good. Going from 85% to 90% starts you up the hockey stick (think of it as a graph which rises SHARPLEY on the right hand side) very quickly. Going from 90% to 95% starts to get REALLY expensive…both in time and money (and time is money).
If we cut off the product quality in the 85% range, and if we craft our development and testing so that 80% of the target audience only has “somewhat minor” issues 10% of the time…it’s a WIN. From there, if half of those customers are somewhat savvy, they may figure out a way around our issue and never bother us with it (after all, if the corporate level really cared, they wouldn’t have this mentality in the first place). We address the remainder (and that other 20% of the target audience) on an “as demanded” basis…meaning we interrupt the next development cycle to “put out a patch” and placate the whiner.
Who thought this up…? Well not an Engineer, (Software, Hardware, Mechanical, Quality Assurance, insert any other here…) or his “worthy” manager either. Engineers (for the most part) want to develop products of which they are proud…not just push it out the door. Likewise, very few engineers like to be interrupted during new work to fix something that “the system” didn’t provide them the opportunity to fix when it would have really made sense.
The problem of which you speak (wrote) is very real….it just isn’t an Engineering problem…it’s a management problem.
And as long as Joe Consumer continues to accept this level of crap….it’s a customer problem as well (they are a part of the problem).
Can I get an AMEN from any of the Engineers in the trenches out there…?
-
-
AuthorReplies