Being heard
propMaker
Posts: 65
I hate when I'm given a project at work and told to find the best solution. Then when I present what I want to do they tell me how they want it done. Or worse, how a sales rep says it should be done. If they knew what they wanted why didn't they just tell me in the first place? I want to use a microcontroller, but they say plc's are more versatile. Then they complain about the price of plc's. I have everything at home to prototype it and show them that a micro is perfectly capable of handling it. Why bother though, they want what they want and I won't get paid for my time if I do it at home.
Sorry for ranting when I just lurk here. I was just hoping to find people who know what I'm going through.
Sorry for ranting when I just lurk here. I was just hoping to find people who know what I'm going through.
Comments
In my past, I've managed to accomplish some technology updates, or decisions to get equipment better suited to the task at hand. One of the most effective ways is to show them the dollars. It's generally a fair amount of work, and somewhat annoying, because you are doing it to benefit them, but then again, a better running company is good for everybody. It's also kind of fun really. I found learning some of the business issues has paid off in life a few times. Edit: I did it then, because I was just passionate. The pay off came later, and I'm glad I did. Sometimes things have benefits that take a while to realize. This is one of those things.
The other interesting bit about that, is sometimes a tech is more appealing, but not always beneficial. Often, a person doesn't know that, or can't see that for some personal preference, or lack of complete analysis.
To do that, you get the numbers on the current tech, and be inclusive about it. You might be denied some, just for how the company operates. Not everybody will be open about financials. Where that happens, you can get some general numbers that can be used to compare the tech solutions in a way that makes sense, that doesn't reveal absolute figures.
So, my process was to run the numbers on the existing solution, inclusive. Do that for a few scenarios, and track it a few times, confirming with observation where possible, and accounting for variances where possible. You reach a burden number, which is basically the cost of business with that technology. Some inferences on the overall margins the business expects can tell you how much is at stake, and whether or not some effort is worth it.
Say a tech solution costs 10K / month, with a margin of 20 percent, meaning they get 12K of revenue, and have 10K in costs. If some alternative can deliver a 30 percent cost reduction, that 2K turns into 5K profit, or margin dollars, for a very significant return. There is a cost to switch over, and that needs to be distributed over some time. Say that's 15K to switch, meaning they could pay that down in 3-6 months, which is perfectly acceptable. If it were, say, 50K, then the time to profit could extend over a year or maybe two, and that generally isn't ok. Still makes money, but the company may not tolerate the lower quarterly performance for that sustained of a time, having to pay investors, share holders, and other capital investments that would compete with what you are doing. Longer time to return = higher risk, FYI.
Run the numbers on your solution, using whatever simulation / test means you can to bolster your case, and see what the return on their investment would be. If you find a favorable case, present it. Often good things will happen.
In one case, during the very early 90's, I ran these numbers on a CNC laser machine to augment the turret punches in a small shop. Did what I just wrote, and ended up walking in one day to see a 250K purchase order, with the exact options I specified on my desk, with a note attached: "This had better be good." LOL!! When that thing arrived, we busted you know what to get it up, and it actually exceeded expectations. The core of the argument was setup time and material cost, with the laser being a fraction of what the punch was, and being extremely efficient on material usage, and flexible enough to use scrap where possible, with some minor operator training. That machine paid itself down in less than 6 months, and I got a nice bit of cash handed to me, along with a few paid days off. Nice for a 20 something.
Another case was nesting software near the same time period. Nesting today is demonstrated to be almost required for many shops, but it was new then. I did a manual nest, which took 4 days to human optimize, and then ran it over a weekend. The savings were clear. Without it, material costs were easily $1000 more per unit run of parts, and that same unit run took two machines, three days to produce. With the nest, that unit run could be done on one machine, in a little over one day. No brainer. The other metric that surprised me, and was not accounted for in the case to change tech, was my human optimization was pretty good. Took 4 days to do though. The computer ended up about 5 percent better, and it took about 20 minutes, LOL!!!
Your friendly sales rep employs this technique daily. Executives need that kind of case to sign off, and no amount of ordinary advocacy will even be heard. How did I come by this? Took that sales rep to lunch one day...
Edit: If you do this, compile your figures and do your homework. When you present it, cite authoritative sources, and or pull numbers from accounting, which is pretty authoritative. Present it clean and clear, dead simple, along with a plan to implement, also clear and presented as low risk as you can make it. You may need to show your work, but don't lead with the detail. Hold it in reserve, hitting them with the numbers case, simple and potent. Follow up, with the detail if challenged. This kind of thing is good on a resume, BTW. You might gain some ground where you are working now, but if you don't, having that skill can prove valuable, particularly if your efforts lead to some adoption. In this cost sensitive time, being able to show some value in that way can set you apart from the many, "has every skill known to man" resume they will see.
Give it a shot anyway. You don't "get paid" working on your home/hobby stuff.
Why not make a hobby of a work project? It'd be a coup if you can deliver - facts are stubborn things.
"A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush."
Add my nickname to the list of people who say you should set up a demo anyway and give it a try. Maybe the sales people et al are sheep and just need somebody with something to lead them to the promised land. If you can do it better, cheaper and put on a demo that has even the least little bit of sexiness to it, then that just might dog those sheep where you want them to go.
A good demo can get somebody interested, but nobody in charge makes any material financial decisions without that return on investment case being made solid. The reason they won't, is they get called to account on those decisions, and that means the risk inherent in making a non-safe choice needs to be shown to be as small as possible, while the reward for making the choice is as high as possible. Trust me on this.
The sales people know that story cold, and will usually work to increase the risk perception of choices that do not personally benefit them. FUD is the primary tool with, "would you bet your job on that, when you can go with us and all our support, etc...?" Gotta have a solid answer to that question, or chance of success is low. They have a financial interest in their choice, which is what sales is, and the decision makers have a personal interest (their job), and often a financial one to make low risk, high return choices. That's reality in nearly every enterprise.
Edit: Which makes geeks who are business minded enough to address something like this valuable over time.
Sometime it is better to reply “how high” when you are asked to jump.
Cheers
Vaclav
I'm not suggesting that he disobey orders while on the job. But it probably wouldn't hurt him if he also walked in the office with a demo that he built on his own time and asked the sheeple to have a look. Perhaps there are options besides being a "pushy technical wiz" or being unemployed. Perhaps he can demonstrate that he is a technical wiz who deserves not only to remain employed but to be respected as a knowledgeable colleague. After all, Maslow's hierarchy does have, at its pinnacle, those very human aspirations of creativity and problem-solving.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs
That said, how it's presented really matters. Being seen as "pushy", is often associated with a lot of passionate actions, where the decisions are done and over. Could go badly. On the other hand, a reasoned presentation, framed in terms of improving the enterprise, backed with data, is hard to position that way, though I have seen it happen from others, who may be threatened by the change in tech. Don't underestimate that factor. The politics of technology in the enterprise can lead to some pretty extreme things, which is the primary reason I advocated using dollars as a foundation. Those are very, very difficult to argue with, FYI.
Doing that is kind of like a leap of faith, or coming of age, or simply pushing the boundaries. The build up to making the case is a difficult time, where a person has not punched through yet. Once a successful case has been made, the ones to follow are much easier. For what it's worth, and clearly YMMV, but that was my overall experience that continues to hold true today.
And it includes a significant section on 'Engineering Economics'.
The point is that any good engineer is supposed to be competent in managing the cost of the project as well as its purpose and the time line. It seems your employer doesn't understand what to expect in terms of professionalism.
Yes! That is often true, where they may be a generalist at best, often pretty far removed from actual technology use. Personally, I've always been somewhat frustrated by that, when there are dubious choices in play. Sometimes that all comes down to a good lunch!! (and that sucks really, but is often reality)
@Leon Been there at the better companies. It's often the little ones, or private ones, that vary in this, and where the politics can flare up. I am not a PE, though I have been around and have done a lot of work in manufacturing and automation. (sure wish there would have been props back then) Anyway, I have a long time PE friend, with whom I have often teamed up over the years to make some significant technology cases.
And he would easily cite the management of cost and quantification of it as core elements of the profession. The most interesting thing about that, often missed by people who are really focused on the technology dynamics, is who else can actually do that with any authority? The sales people? For their product, sure, but I wouldn't trust them with a comparison. Consultants? Perhaps, though it pays to understand where their consulting knowledge access comes from. Vendors often feed consultants just what they need to hear to sell it, more than realistically consult on it. A smart company will understand that their engineer, who is vested in that enterprise, is probably the best person to put that case together, working with accounting to get metrics that are necessary. Again, that is usually a valuable person, because it can be difficult to source that kind of work, for the reasons I just cited.
Just FYI, my point on this thread was to share some life experience that has paid off, not to devalue anybody, just to be clear. I can easily identify with the frustration of the OP, and desired to give them some "outs" for the future, same as I had done for me quite some time ago. A mentor or two got that stuff sorted for me nicely. On that note, finding one of those, who has been around a while in or around your niche of interest, is worth a lot!! Recommended.
This is a project out of the norm for my company. We make propellers(not the silicon variety), not electronics to sell to customers. I work on the few in house automation projects we do. Nobody really has any experience building stuff. If we need a new work cell we go to outside companies to design and build them. That's how I got my job, I followed some machines there. And I didn't learn much from them, they didn't know what they were doing either.
This project is a diagnostic tool for our own shop and certified shops that service our propellers. Basically I'm making a fancy servo, a motor and gearbox with potentiometer feedback, controlled by a panel mounted pot and some toggle switches. I'm not making the gearbox, that's already done. It also has to be portable which is why I voted microcontroller.
Luckily since this is a sellable product I don't have to worry about return on investment. I just need to look at component costs and assembly time. I think programming time on a plc and micro would be similar.
If you do it at home, check your employment contract. If you are ok, ensure nothing from work is used. Then when you show it, if they don't like what they see, or they do, it's yours to sell, etc.
The real trick is getting ALL the upfront requirements early (upfront) and addressing the contradictions (requirements indicate a microcontroller, asker "has a gut feeling" that a plc is better and insists on that). The asker must not be permitted to inflict implementation details ("and I think it should be done on a plc for no real reason") unless they understand and agree that they are adding significant risk to success. This step is a key factor in likelihood of success.
Process control for engineering development deals this. Large companies with engineering development process control (aerospace, military) tend to be very successful and their biggest problem is when to put all the money. Everybody usually has major problems re-spending development money in the form of bug fixes and re-work. A client that "finished the project on time" with an "aggressive schedule" ended up paid over ten times (easily) the cost in rework and bug fixes. All that extra work is lost profit that cannot go to me or other employees (the boss still gets bonuses, regardless).
Be cautious. Every place I have ever worked had a contract that stated anything I do that has any remote association to what the company does is automatically owned by the company, including development outside work. In fact, a cellular telephone company whose name starts with Motorola had a contract that said ANYTHING I develop while in their employ is their property. When I asked my boss to check with legal if this was correct and enforceable, he never got back to me for years, but they still got people to sign such a contract. Per Cluso99 comment, nowadays companies are OK with "you doing it on your own", but will want to claim ownership.
But I do know what you are going through. On the bright side, you only have to deal with this occasionally, some of us do only this exclusively.
If one employee designs something and is the only person who understands how it works, then later that employee leaves the company, they could be in big trouble if the gizmo stopped working or needed to be changed.
If however they can use an "off the shelf" product which is well documented, many other employees understand its workings, and there is a "pool" of people out in the world who understand the gizmo and these people could easily be hired in the future, then taking that path might avoid problems in the future.
Also obtaining spares, replacements, or having the gizmo repaired can be much easier if it is an "off the shelf" product.
Maybe I should leave well enough alone and leave work at work. I already have too many projects at home.
Yeah, right.
Needless to say, the test platform will use a Propeller attached to a VGA monitor and a PS/2 keyboard.
Not always true. I sometimes write video compression / decompression engines as a hobby. The last company I worked for needed something to do video playback for their games, and I showed them my latest one. It was appealing to them because it was cheaper than licensing something from another company, they'd have someone on staff who could make changes if necessary, and it ran on all the platforms we supported at the time. It also had the possibility of running on any future ones quite easily since we had the source code. It was clear of patents and had no licensing fees.
I got a hefty bonus for it, and the company sourced it to other companies using our same publisher, who in turn paid for it, and I got a chunk of that too. I made out rather well on that "hobby". A little initiative can go a long way. It doesn't -always- work, but if you have a solid bit of tech, and can prove it to be better, cheaper, or both, that's usually all it takes.
Some of the code for this project came from code that I had wrote for other projects that I did for my self
I learn alot more about how to write P basic code for micro controllers that I would not have learn if I had not done this project
Here is what I would say
Try this idea at home and see if you can make your idea work and go from there
One Note I really like reading this post
I shouldn't let it bother me so much, I really need to stay motivated to keep tinkering with things at home. I don't care if I get rich selling inventions, I would be satisfied with having cool stuff to show people.
'
I know the feeling.I got a work order to replace an old electro-mechanical controller with a modern PLC type controller for an old Air Dryer.Cost was really emphasized, And I needed to keep it as low as possible.
'
I choose the Propeller and PropBasic. I built a controller for the old Air Dryer and it worked great.
'
When I submitted the Drawings to my Boss, He asked me what program I used to program the Prop?
'
I sent him the Docs on PropBasic.
'
He said since Parallax doesn't support PropBasic. This will not met the NERC standard that the company has to live up to.
'
So now I'm ordering a high dollar Allen Bradley PLC, and I have to write in the goofy ladder logic, Instead of Basic.
'
I feel So demoralized to have to write in Ladder Logic.This is CODE for idiots
'