Generation Conflict - Changing The Wheel 9

[TheNextGen]

How can I convince the old guard engineers that it is time to update their means and methods?

I'm not trying to "reinvent the wheel." But something major needs to be done. To borrow from the MBA'ers, there needs to be "disruptive" change.

I'm in a stodgy old industry that's been churning out reliable widgets for more than a century. I'm in a specialty which codified (industry wide) its philosophy half a century ago. My company's specifications to which I'm designing are at least 30 years old. The company's leaders of my speciality have been doing this work since the days of paper, pencil, and slide rule along with some reference tables were all that was available.

I'm almost 30. I grew up with computers. (See where this is going?) I'm a few years into my career. My designs are out in the field operating successfully. I have "field" experience with the manufacture and installation of the widgets I design (though not their operation).

Here's the conflict:
I have something to contribute. The old guard pushes back, saying "but that's not the way we have done it."

I feel that I've paid my dues. I've done the work the old way. I've read the old masters of my speciality (more than many of the old guard). I'm up to speed on the modern research in my field (very few of the old guard are).

I have proved in hard data that my proposals produce an objectively better widget. "But that's not the way we have always done it."

... For less engineering hours, material cost, and installation cost. "But that's not the way we have always done it."

... Without compromising safety or pushing the envelop of what the code allows. "But that's not the way we have always done it."



How do you deal with engineers who refuse to reason?


Should I just grin, bear it and wait for the retirement receptions?

The Next Gen

 

[monkeydog]

NextGen,

Just out of curiosity, when you say you have proven in hard data, your ideas are better, is it in the form of:

Hey Old Joe, look at my spreadsheet if we buy cast widget housing instead of machining out of bar stock, we can save 2 hours of machining time.

Or have you written a white paper with your proposals, rational and justification for your proposed changes, and floated it up at least 1 level past your boss?

Presentation of your thoughts are just as important as the idea it's self.

 

[dvd]

It would make the discussion a lot more pertinent for me if the "widgets" and company were identified. I might want to buy these products; it sounds like a company that can be depended upon.

 

[TheNextGen]

Thank you for the replies, all. I appreciate the snide remarks, too. My apologies for the long reply. Please skim as it pertains to your thoughts.

Naming the widget
would narrow it down too much for my comfort. The widget is a massive design. We are consulting engineers that build major facilities. My specialty is a necessary auxiliary to the main purpose of these facilies. I.e. I cost money but do not make money. I'm the guy who designs the the axel of your car, but not the engine. The HVAC of your skyscraper, but not the steel. The fuel tanks of your airliner, but not the cabin.

Going over old guard's heads
If you call the old guard lower management, the department heads and project managers middle management, and the C-levels as upper management... the C-level's back cautious innovation and tech. We're not first adopters. I don't think we should be. However, my designs don't even register on their importance scale.

The middles want to do more with less, cut costs, cut hours etc. I've piqued their interest and got general statements of support in private. No one is eager to take up the issue for me, and the old salts retreat to their "this is how we've always done it" argument if I bring it up with them and the middles. They let the conversation trail off and pretend like nothing happened the next day.

The lowers, the old salts are the ones who give day to day direction on HOW work shall be done.

Objectively better?
Compare it to shaving razors. First one blade, then two, then three, where will it stop? 4... 5... I think there even was a 6 at one point.

Imagine the industry standard was 18 blades per razor head. 18 blades spreads the pressure out to avoid cuts and nicks, and surely we'll get every last bit of hair possible with 18 blades and we'll guarantee them to last for 100 shaves. My design uses... 14 blades. Still overkill. No nicks or cuts. Still close. Still lasts 100 shaves. Costs less. Sells for the same. In fact, our major competitor is already selling 14 blade razors and research says that 12 blades is better but lab tests are pending.

My sour attitude & personal traits
I admit freely that my attitude has soured as I encounter more and more resistance. They are grinding my will down, day by day. I can see how one of you said I've already become one of them. However, I still place my bet on "I know" rather than "they said."

My bona fides would be meaningless in an anonymous posting like this. I said that I'm eligible but not licensed as an engineer to give a gauge of my experience level. I'm not cocky enough to say I have all-but-passed the exam.

But I do have an attitude. Go back to "I know" vs. "they said." Too many engineers that I have met (at my company and others) hang their hat on "they said." Their only contribution to society is that these people haven't screwed up what the ambiguous "they" created. I'm not to the point where I can say "I created this" but I can say "I understand what 'they' have done." I can apply their concept to my own thoughts. I do not plagiarize. And if something goes wrong, I will stand up and say "I was wrong. Mea culpa." The others will hide behind what "they" said when they do eventually screw up. In my mind, this makes me a more competent professional than the others.

I am not a charismatic people-person (I'd be in sales, crime, or politics if I was). Interpersonal skills are a major shortcoming of mine, and I'm seeking advice.

 

[KENAT]

They say acknowledging a problem is the first step to solving it.

Would you consider part of your non 'people person' persona problem to be poor communication skills? If so there have been a number of threads relating to this, one thing that often comes up is 'toastmasters'. So maybe you could try that?

I know for a fact I suck at hiding my frustration at times, I even brought it up here once. thread731-179040

In my first few weeks as an engineer at a defense contractor in the UK one of the jobs I got given was to go through a long list of ideas one of the production engineers and the relevant foreman had for standardizing between 2 products and reducing cost. The new Technical Director was really keen on this.

I dutifully compiled the list, did a little research, and then presented it to my immediate boss - the new sustaining (PDS) manager, and to the old sustaining manager. In short order they tore through most of the list dismissing it on the grounds of how much it would take to qualify the changes, or how it wouldn't meet one another requirement etc.

Maybe a 1/4 of them were left after that meeting, further investigation ruled out a bunch more. Combined with the difficulties of changing a drawing pack that effectively belonged to the govt not us, almost none of the changes got made.

My point is, a lot of the time even smart and/or experienced folk can support bad ideas in areas they aren't familiar with or that lie outside their 'core competency' to use some nice management speak.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​

 

[KENAT]

Oh, and you misunderstood my comment about your eligibility to sit for the PE. Even if you had the PE it wouldn't have awed me.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​

 

[ctopher]

TheNextGen,
I have experienced your issues before. It seems like purchasing and/or marketing is driving engineering.
Management listens to them because they talk $$, engineers don't.

Chris
SolidWorks 10 SP4.0
ctopher's home
SolidWorks Legion

 

[engineertipsman]

Its comes down to you still get a paycheck every two weeks, so unless you are willing to leave, just give them the design they want, and if its costing more, eventually they will be run out of business. Sorry by then you cant tell them 'told you so' but you can come back here and tell us.

 

[PeterStock]

TheNextGen;

You say your group costs money, they don't make it. That means that you need to prove that your way will cost your company less to produce and at the same time not cost your company sales when the customer sees something he may not understand. If your way costs a bit less to make, but will involve a lot of explanation, then my tendency would be to do it the old way, even if yours is the better way.

Peter Stockhausen
Senior Design Analyst (Checker)
Infotech Aerospace Services

http://www.infotechpr.net

 

[btrueblood]

"the trick is, listen to them because they may well have been doing some serious thinking about this themselves. "

Agree with jmw there, and would add:

They may have actually tried it before (when they were younger and faster-moving), failed, and (true to step 5 of a famous flow chart) managed to hide the result and save their jobs. If you are lucky, you may get the un-enviable task of cleaning out one of the old guard's offices when they retire or otherwise leave the company. You may well find therein a treasure trove of documents describing past efforts and tests, folder upon folder of useful data and drawings...

...and a day or two later you may have a beancounter come by and order you to toss all of it, as it's taking up space and not providing anything tangibly useful to the company.

 

[plasgears]

If you have thoughts of moving on, put together a resume that speaks of your experience there and include the ideas that you developed, even though the bosses rejected them. Your next bosses may not be so stodgy and blind, and they may be encouraged to see you perform as claimed.

Reminds me of a gearmotor company that refused to disclose low cost plastic drives to a big customer. After a period of time the big customer developed their own plastic drives because they had a molding capability in house. Plastic had a bigger envelope, but it cost 1/3 of the steel drive with zinc gearbox.

 

[TheNextGen]

I'm not buying the "it's been tried before, and it failed" theory.

If that were the case, why not just say so? They've admitted other "learning opportunities" and are eager to share war stories. On most days, I'm even eager to listen and learn!

As I said, I'll listen to reason from the old guard. It's the refusal to engage in a rational two-way discussion of the subject that bothers me. They will not back away from their dogmatic recital of "we've always done it this way."

 

[desertfox]

Hi TheNextGen

Why not ask the old guard to explain what is wrong with your proposal,ask them for an input, can they see a better way of improving on your proposal, I would try to make them feel there giving you good advice, that way you might get them on your side.

desertfox

 

[Bester2]

TheNextGen,

If the industry is old and the designs are old, and they are still able to make money, status quo will remain. If you would like to make innovative designs then try and find work in a new industry that is just starting to take shape.

I was listening to an interview with Mark Cuban, the owner of the Dallas Maverick's, he said something that I will remember for the rest of my life. He said (I am paraphrasing) "If you work somewhere and you think you know of a better way of doing things then you should do everything you can to get things done your way. One of two outcomes should happen, your way should get implemented and succeed or you should be fired because your way failed or management would not accept your idea and fired you for not giving up on the idea." He stated he had been fired multiple times but still never gave up on the idea. If his idea had failed he would most likely be somewhere in middle management for a different company. If he shut his mouth and did as he was told he would most likely be a little higher in middle management for the company he was working for. So the risk of change was maybe a rung or two of middle management for a downside and happiness (wealth for him) maybe just satisfaction for you as an upside. I make waves all the time, speak up in any situation where I think I can add any information. I make a fool out of myself all of the time and have brilliant ideas less often. If we had a layoff tomorrow I am sure I would be one of the first people out the door. I am not liked at my work and I really don't care. I am just like you I have enough experience to sit for my PE but have no desire too. I go home each day knowing that I have done all I could to change things my way. So far I have not been fired, my ways have worked, but I would not be surprised if my manager walked into my office tomorrow and told me to get out. BTW I also work in an industry where our products were designed over 30 years ago and changed is blasphemy.

So the question I pose to you and I think you should really think about is; Are you willing to take the risk professionally to make changes at you current company? If not you need to change jobs and I would suggest industries or keep plugging along cash your check and find something else in you life that can satisfy your need for improvement.

Now to use one of my other favorite quotes to close this comment

"I am not afraid of dying, I afraid of not trying."
Jay-Z


SW 2007 SP 5.0

 

[jmw]

When I joined my first company, they were celebrating their 200th year in business.
In the foyer they had a spare wheel from Wellington's funeral carriage (the Duke of Wellington who defeated Napoleon, that one).
Back then they were among the finest bronze casters in London.
They had been a family company, then began the succession of buy outs and take overs, the lack of investment, the asset stripping and the cheapo know it all managers who actually didn't know one end of the business from another.

In spite of which I never had any troubles with the old guard.
We did have more than a few "man and boy" types because virtually all the staff had been their as apprentices and this was about the final days of the "work at one place all your life" culture and usually it was where their dads had worked before them.

I liked to talk with the folks who had worked there all their working lives. The guys with old bits and pieces of long ago dead products on their desks. The ones with all the stories.

Yes, there were the odd one or two who didn't like change. But my story above should have clued you in.
As often as not it is management who are the problem.
I have actually found that when you want to do something and go talk to the guys they have usually been there and done that.

It was management killed that company in the end. Not the workers, engineers, not the young or old.

In my time their starting of I found it easy to get things done. I didn't have to work at it. I was interested and I was enthusiastic and I sometimes did have good ideas.
There were quite a number of products that had my stamp on them by the end.

Of course, I'm now one of the old guys and I like new ideas and new ways to do things. What frustrates me is the resistance to change from management and the dreaded bean counters who are suspicious of any project that seems to show a good return on investment.

At my last company the only way projects got done was if there was a customer lined up ready and willing to pay for it. You could put up any new product idea supported by smart marketing, gant charts, attractive ROI's and get nowhere without some customer was actually banging on the door to get a result. It was management that was my biggest problem from the beginning to the end.

In 35-40 years I can name about two, maybe three good managers.

The point is that it may be that no one likes to jump through hoops when they know the management will never wear it.

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[ajack1]

BJC “Them that can do, does, them that can't whine.”

Absolutely. When you look at the way some on here whinge about management and how everything is against them I wonder why they don’t do something about it. However if I think about it for a minute the probable answer becomes more obvious.

If people want to be really innovative or really know a better way to do things they would do something about it, however there is risk involved and you have to be right. To just whinge neither of those things apply, so it is a very easy and safe option, but with no positive side what so ever.

 

[jmw]

It is interesting to look at the generational changes in products.
This will tell you something.

Quite often a company well established in the market will not want to introduce new technology or will not appreciate the potential through change compared to the risk of change.

The next generation technology will often come from a new company who will them displace the original manufacturer and take over that market.

This happens.

I have been responsible myself for the development of a product that took over the market from the original manufacturer who had over 40 years of market dominance, with up to 90-95% of the market for some of that time.

In my case the original manufacturer produced a product that had a selling price of around £2500 - £3000.
The end users wanted something more accurate and less expensive and which didn't require maintenance or recalibration.

Not unreasonable considering how technological advances have made such wish lists realistic.

Now look it from the original manufacturer's point of view.

They have to invest a lot of money on a new product.
It will use far fewer components, cost less to make, need fewer workers and fewer skills.
Note the "fewer workers" bit. This is something workers don't like.
It will reduce their turnover because it won't increase market share (it won't. They already make the best product and yet competitors have a stake in the market. Producing an even better product may not improve market share, it may just lose some share as those who like the original product shift to other manufacturers. That means they now have carry on making the original product but will, because of reduce sales volumes, either take a lower margin or have to put the price up).
So they are going to take a 20-30% drop in turnover for no real gain.
There is nothing in it for them.

It might make some slight change to profitability. But possibly not.

They think they are the only company with the necessary skills for that market and when they look outside they see high spec product all costing £10-12,000 per unit.

They see no external threats and their competition within the market doesn't have the clout, the money, the capability or the incentive to do anything. The competition live on their share of the market with no great ambition (and still do).

They tell themselves they have nothing to fear and that they are in a seller's market.
They do make a start on a new product to give the appearance of co-operation but (not deliberately) choose a technology ill-suited to meeting the demands of the new market - they only think they understand their own market but like so many manufacturers, late in the product life cycle, all they have been doing for the last 10-20 years is filling orders.
They have lost touch with the key market drivers. They misread their own market, it happens a lot. (Product life cycles are interesting.)

So they show they are doing something but progress is abysmally slow. It sometimes seems little more than a PR exercise. They have been doing this for five years or more (it took us one year, including the necessary trials).

A key end user goes outside the market and find a new supplier (the company I worked for).
They present a very simple but very clever target specification.
We take it seriously.
We have to learn the market very quickly and very thoroughly. We really need to understand the key drivers in this market and in this application.
We do, We do it very well.

This is a product that will sell in other markets.
It represents a huge increase in manufacturing and turnover and profits because we have no stake in his market. It would be a success for us if we won just this one OEM contract.

We develop a product with unique "must have" features.
We can meet their price targets but our must have features give us a lock on the market and we win the market with a product at around £2600-2800.

There is no price war. This is a product with unbeatable cost/benefit.
The original manufacturer now races to complete their product. They bring it to the market but they chose the wrong technology. They cannot deliver any of the must have features.
They now suffer a very serious drop in turnover.
They keep trying to massage the technology they chose to make it work.
They now have so much money invested in it they can't let go and start again with a different technology.
They should.
They won't.

(I know one company alleged to have invested US$millions in a new product that scrapped it just before they launched it. They finally realised they would be throwing good money after bad. Old Poker adage, once the money is in the pot, it isn't yours any more.)

That this happens time and again should tell you something.

This may be something you will encounter, if not now and in this company, in some other company.

The root cause is the "Ye Olde Feare of Crosse Capture" syndrome.
This is where a new product will impact on sales of an existing product.
I have have had many project ideas go nowhere because of this or I have had to accept some imposed product limitations so that the new product will not impact on an old product.

Another example.
As the market leading manufacturer of an industry standard sensor where the industry (oil and gas) preferred Explosion proof electronics, the product used Intrinsic safety requiring zenner barriers.
This is the Henry Ford approach of "any colour you like so long as it is black". This is what we make, like it or leave it.
Finding suitable earths on an oil platform for zenner barriers is a pain.
It took me a lot of effort to get the product changed to allow galvanic isolation and I only succeeded when I discovered it required only new drawings and a new set of certs.
I never did get explosion-proof past the bean counters. It would have required a lot of investment and work.

There are always lots of strong reasons why new ideas are not well received. Some good, some bad, most short-sighted.
Most due to management having a completely different set of objectives.

Some actually good.
If there really is no threat to the market, no increase in market share, no increase in profitability (lower costs invariably lead to lower sales prices so margins usually remain pretty much the same) and so the net effect might only be that a whole bunch of people get laid off, it won't fly.

Stock markets look at turnover and profit. The directors have a responsibility to the shareholders. The stock market is largely about short term position not long term, especially if you trade at below £200M. Above this level the pension funds buy in and they look for something else, long term sustainable profitability.
These affect management decisions more than saving some dollars on how you make something.

If your widget company is a market leader or if the market is pretty resistant to innovation (there is a lot of brand and product loyalty out there) change can be bad.

Just being able to do something doesn't always mean you should do it and as often as not the fear of change has some well founded basis that may not be properly understood or articulated by the people you talk to.

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
This is another of the mantras that remind the rank and file of certain truisms without their needing to understand the reasons why.

The "serenity prayer" is a good one:
"God Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference."

It misses out on:
Just because we can change something doesn't mean we should change something.

Yes, some things are better left alone.

It is always about more than the product and more than just the more obvious profit and loss argument.


JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[Compositepro]

Wow, JMW. You've been on a roll with sage postings lately. Yes, it helps to understand why companies work the way they do and that is why things will not change for the better.

I've seen many cases of managers stealing from companies and even seen the division headquarters relocated away from all other company operations so that the president could be where he wanted to retire in a few years. Corporate managers get ahead by always looking after their personal interests and not the best interest of the company. On rare occasions the two may be the same.

 

[SomptingGuy]

Some widgets need to be made by a documented method to be acceptable to a certain customer. Changes to the widget also need to be made through a documented engineering process. Changes to that engineering process will also need to be documented.

When a plane falls out of the sky or a ship sinks because one of the many widgets that comprise(d) it had changed slightly from the spec, or failed for a reason that wasn't expected, the witch-hunt starts.

- Steve

 

[rmw]

I have thought about this thread a lot. I once worked for that company that NextGen mentions; maybe not the very one that the OP worked for but none the less one that was stuck in the past, and to a large extent, well described by JMW, comfortable making their widget in a limited market (as long as it lasts.) It is the kind of widget that takes way too much capital investment and skilled labor to start on a whim to try to take their market.

I don't think it is a generational thing, because I was old enough to be the father of many of the recalcitrant workers I encountered in that company and fought so hard with trying to get them out of their rut to do things that would enhance their business.

In this case it wasn't their product or their manufacturing techniques, both of which were conservative, stodgy and archaic, but their aftermarket business where the third party suppliers were making a meal off of what could have been a lot more business for them.

They weren't located in the part of the world where the vast majority of their product was sold and ultimately used and had no grasp of the business mentality and model of their customers. They thought things were done in the destination country(s) like it was done back in the home country. Nothing could have been more worlds apart.

In fact, the conservative nature of their new product might have been a plus for them in that because of the conservative design, it was very rugged and as such provided a high level of reliability in an industry where reliability is a must. On my first tour through their factory, looking through eyes with years of experience with a variety of manufacturers, my constant thought was "boy, could I ever cost reduce this thing." But to what point. It wasn't broke and didn't need fixing.

Some of the major customers who kept them in business actually manufacture their own version of the widget within their company in other divisions, but a certain selective division of the customer's company preferred to use the widget made by the third party company I worked for because their own company's widget wasn't nearly up to the conservative robust design. And... having the widget company as almost a captive supplier meant that they could squeeze them to keep the price down where they wanted it. There wasn't enough other world market for the widget for the widget company to tell that major customer to stuff it. We often joked that the customer company didn't need to buy us, they already owned us.

A lot of the problem I had in common with NextGen had to do with the motivation of the workforce. In this company, no one in the customer facing departments of the company, sales, service, engineering, PM, etc, were on any kind of an incentive program (commission or bonus) so it didn't make any difference to them whether or a sale was made or not. In fact, I sensed that they believed that if they made a sale, then that meant that much more work that they would have to do and since they would make the same pay whether or not any additional sales were made, why try harder.

"WE CAN'T DO THAT" seemed to be the company mantra. They were truly more interested in process than profits. If getting the sale meant deviating from the precious process in any way, then the process won out. They often joked 'yeah, but we lost it with a high margin.' Sometimes I think the margins were set to guarantee that they wouldn't have to do any extra work.

After a few years of max frustration, I finally gave up and went to work for another company who has true competition and where innovation and modernization are the word of the day. I am much more the happy camper for having done so. So, head for the door NextGen. You will be a heart patient before your age doubles if you don't. If you find the right thing that fits you, you will be worlds better off. My wife tells folks "I am married to a happy man now."

Ironically, the niche I have found with that company I am with now is that the 30 somethings that are so good with the new technology and whiz bang computer tools and who I believe to be better engineers than I ever was or will be have no experience out in the real world. So this geezer is valued for having 'school of hard knocks' insights into real problems and experience with what works and what doesn't. It is almost the generational thing in reverse. I like it and I am at an age where lots of geezers worry about being shown the door. I sleep well at night.

rmw

 

[jmw]

I wanted to say something about how many of the "old guys" well familiar with the product and how it is made will have plenty of ideas how to do it better but don't share.
This will be engineers and machine operators, in fact any worker.
BUT: there is often a problem with the company culture that does not encourage ideas or any kind of thinking.

I know we had a long thread on incentives schemes, Suggestion Schemes etc. but can't find it.
I did find this which seemed appropriate:
javascriptpenindex(450,450,'

http://www.tipmaster.com/includes/refinfo.cfm?w=450&h=450')

Ah, tried "suggestions schemes" and found it, or a close match:

http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=152846&page=15

And another thread worth revisiting:

http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=94092

.


JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com