Obstacle of the day: Scope Creep 5

[MadMango]

Scope Creep can be a huge issue in any industry, and I'm surprised that it has not been discussed in greater detail here. It seems that even though there are Preliminary Design Views, Design Reviews, Final Design Reviews, Prototype Builds, and Pre-production Builds, certain branches in an organization will keep their traps shut until the Eleventh Hour. I've been working on a modular product family for the better part of 18 months now. The last 6 have been mostly approving castings, and dotting I's and crossing T's. Suddenly, those wonderful folks in Marketing want to add certain Bells and change certain Whistles. Short of ramming someone's head (not mine) through a reinforced wall, how have members here dealt with last minute changes in their environments?

I understand that adding or changing part finishes is no big deal, but how can a product expect to make it to market on time when requested changes involve 4-6wks in mold retooling alone? We'll overlook associated re-testing and validation for now. It seems incredulous to desire changes without pushes the schedule as well.

Grrr...

"Art without engineering is dreaming; Engineering without art is calculating."

Have you read faq731-376 to make the best use of these Forums?

 

[KENAT]

btrue, even then you just push the program cost high enough for them to hopefully abandon it, and the schedule out far enough so that either management will have changed or you'll have found a new position before any tricky deliverables.;-)

Posting guidelines faq731-376

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

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

 

[ports394]

We've covered a fairly big scope of projects here. In chemical processing, where I work... There's 2 prevailing mentalities "high value, low volume" and "high volume, low value".

Try to get engineers/markets from those 2 sides together and it's like talking to a rock.

 

[jmw]

Yes and generally the only way from one to the other is via incremental steps.
The trouble with incremental steps is the old fear of product cross capture.
If a low volume high value product moving to low value high product there will be a fear that some high value products sales will be "captured" by the low value product. But that is as it should be.
Not all applications that have the high value product really justify it unless it is the only product in town.
The trouble with the fear of cross capture is that the product design will get compromised simply to avoid this and it may then not fully satisfy the requirements for the market it is intended to target and that is when the competition can step in.

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[ports394]

JMW, in my experience, you're one or the other. Companies and people that try to work with both, tend to go insane.

 

[patprimmer]

I don't know. An extremely successful supermarket chain here does both.

It started here with a brand called No Frills that came in plain black and white packaging.

Woolworths has Home brand, Woolworths Select brand and OEM brands all side by side. It's a game you need to know how to play though.

Many car companies also did it a lot with Badge engineering for different trim levels. VW and Audi springs to mind, GM does it with Chevy, Buick and whatever other brands they still push. BMC did it with MG, Riley, Wolsley Austin and Morris brands



Regards
Pat
See FAQ731-376 for tips on use of eng-tips by professional engineers &

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

for site rules

 

[jmw]

Woolworths is still alive and well in Oz?
It died here a couple of years ago.

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[jmw]

But Pat is right, there is always a away.
My solution was to step outside the usual company product numbering system and create Brand names very much related to the key markets.
I ended up with a single piece of hardware with a single suite of software.
For the low cost market I applied a brand name for the market and restricted the range of hardware options in that market. The single suite of software was factory set up to only expose certain limited functions to the low cost market and some special functions.
In the general market, a different brand name, a wider range of hardware options and different visible software options; and a price about 3 times higher (with some justification for some of the difference).
Clients then might see some obvious similarity between the two products but never questioned which was the product they should have because they associated their needs with the right product because of the brand name.

Of course, there is always a way management can f*** up and they found it but it wasn't my fault and not for want of my trying.

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[ports394]

True, there is a way. But look at how the badge engineering has screwed Ford and Chevy. Why would I buy a Lincoln sedan when I can get the same physical car/shape in a Ford Fusion? Or similar issues in GM.
Consumers don't like it, and it took the industry failing here for that to get a little better.
Saturn was an ENTIRE line of rebadges.

It's possible to do both. But in some ways, I don't think 1 person is capable of doing both at the same time. I used to work at a lab where we charged 5 figures a day, to sell data. The clients didn't care about the products we produced for them. Very high value data, and very low volume product. I could usually call in a construction dumpster and dispose of it all.

Like in prioritizing repairs..

 

[patprimmer]

Rebadging was not the reason for Ford or GM or Crysler or BMCs downfalls. VW seem to be currently having some success with it.

GM seem to have success when rebadging Japanese built cars to local USA brands.

Regards
Pat
See FAQ731-376 for tips on use of eng-tips by professional engineers &

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

for site rules

 

[lacajun]

I've seen scope creep due to politics, ineptitude, unrealistic goals, poor management, misunderstandings, subversion due to bad politics, indecision, etc. from a variety of departments. It will always be so.

The key is to have solutions, if possible, when things do get out of hand. It takes a lot of discipline to run good projects and our culture reflects too little of that these days. Not to digress...

Pamela K. Quillin, P.E.
Quillin Engineering, LLC

 

[patprimmer]

I have seen it where people supposedly involved from the start don't pay attention until the first of samples come off the production line. It is then that they add their thoughts. Great timing.

Regards
Pat
See FAQ731-376 for tips on use of eng-tips by professional engineers &

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

for site rules

 

[cranky108]

We are trying a new tactic. Give the project to the operations manager and say, "we can't support the cost to our managment, you need to justify it to your managment". So far it seems to kill the project. And we get to say to the operations people, "your managers killed it".

The reality is our budget is much larger than the operations budget so they can't support very many projects.

 

[CastMetal]

Cranky,
Now you're just moving on to the next obstacle of the day. Infighting between departments.

Comprehension is not understanding. Understanding is not wisdom. And it is wisdom that gives us the ability to apply what we know, to our real world situations

 

[cranky108]

Both are symptioms of the same root cause. Managment allows things that they should not allow. And it seems to be the same people over and over.

 

[patprimmer]

cranky.

So you take it upon yourself to scuttle projects you decide are not worthwhile. No wonder there is poor co-operation between departments.

Regards
Pat
See FAQ731-376 for tips on use of eng-tips by professional engineers &

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

for site rules

 

[cranky108]

No we do not scuttle projects. These are worthwhile projects, but not at the projected cost. The decision is if we can't contain the cost, then we don't do the project.

The decision is contain cost.

 

[lacajun]

patprimmer (Publican)
18 Apr 12 20:15
I have seen it where people supposedly involved from the start don't pay attention until the first of samples come off the production line. It is then that they add their thoughts. Great timing.

People like that are everywhere, aren't they?

Pamela K. Quillin, P.E.
Quillin Engineering, LLC