I've been around a number of start-up programs, and most of them were alot alike: Engineering was late and over budget, and it was always "our fault." Over the years, I've come to recognize that there is some truth to that. Engineering seldom steps up to the plate like I think we are capable of doing. On the other hand, the deck is usually stacked against us before we start. Estimates are cut to win the job; schedule is squandered during the bid and proposal phase, but the delivery date never moves....
You've been there; you've seen it too. I'd like to hear from you. Where do we go wrong as an industry, and as a profession? What do we need to do to improve? I believe we can improve. Dramatically. What do you think?
3 comments:
One thing I've noticed is that the programs always start understaffed compared to the required staffing projections. They usually remain understaffed until we reach that steep part of the release curve and fall behind, which is usually followed by instense overtime and a flood of new people brought on the program to get it back on track. From what I've beent told, this is done because they figure the money saved early in the program will help offset the cost of the big push towards the end.
There are some major drawbacks to this that I see. One is that quality goes down the crapper when the big push happens due to the stress of long hours, the need to work faster, and the flood of new people who are also new to the design standards of the program. Another is that once you get behind, there is not much room in the schedule to catch-up. And finally this becomes a management nightmare trying to track the massive amount of work being pushed through the system so fast. In my opinion, the better approach is to work ahead early by staffing according to need, resulting in an overall flatter release curve that is much easier to manage.
As for the "our fault" part, I see that as a cultural thing in many companies. Often the shop is seen as the money maker, and the engineers are just considered a cost. This gives the shop managers more power to dictate their schedules and squeeze the engineering schedule in the process, resulting in delinquencies being "our fault." My current company likes to preach "teamwork" at the executive level, but it hasn't fully trickled down into the lower levels. We all need to be considered equal partners in making the company successful, meaning that when things get difficult, everyone needs to do their part to squeeze their schedules and help each other through it. Time to dismantle the "empire" walls that we have setup around our groups.
My experiences are in line with yours, thisguy. I know there is an ongoing debate about the advantages of staffing up early versus only staffing with senior people until you have all the processes defined. I tend to lean toward holding off on the staffing until the experienced guys and gals have knocked down a lot of the roadblocks. But once that happens, you have to be able to bring people in quickly and make them productive in a flash. Easier said than done.
I've seen a couple of comments about the rest of the IPT squeezing engineering schedules. I've got a rather singular perspective about that, which I will save for a later post.
I think the feeling of engineers being a necessary evil is fairly universal, and pretty unfortunate. We should be seen as one of the company's most valuable resources. But then, I'm not sure we always earn that respect. I see lots of opportunity for Engineering to mature as a functioning member of our respective aerospace companies.
One thing that was done wrong on this program was the way engineering management staffed this program. You should always start a new program with a handful of experienced people who have been leaders on a similar program before. Those people set up the ground work for the entire program. You have to have experience to do that; you have to know what the problems will be and how to solve them.
To staff this program, upper engineering management told the first level managers to give up one or two of their people to staff a new program. Do you suppose the first level managers gave up their best people? Or do you suppose they used this as a way to get rid of the dead weight at the bottom of their organizations?
So this program started off with nothing but the bottom 10%. The managers had never managed before and the leads had never led before. For the first year or so there was no leadership and no plan or schedule. Little progress was made and the customer was alienated. Finally, when other programs ended and good people came on board progress was made.
I don’t see the same staffing problems occurring on new programs now, probably just because we aren’t being stretched so thin; there doesn’t seem to be that many new programs now. But we should be careful not to repeat that mistake in the future.
Post a Comment