Management and Engineering
in [DSP]
|
Prev: Name That Topology
Next: COMP.DSP 2010 update
From: Jerry Avins on 16 Mar 2010 13:13 Rune Allnor wrote: > On 16 Mar, 16:48, Jerry Avins <j...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >> Apropos management and >> leadership: did anyone think to have a half-hour basic hygiene sit-down >> session with at least the kitchen crew? > > Probably not - until it was decades too late. My *prejudice* on > the matter that these guys are not used to think or to understand; > just to do what they are told. > > If somebody tell them to wear rubber gloves, they wear > rubber gloves. No questions asked. No arguing or discussing. > No decisions to be made. End of story. > > Pyshology and culture. As long as they really do what they're told, there are ways around the problem: 1. Tell them what to do as you would write an algorithm. Be complete and make no assumptions. No appeal to the DWIM key. 2. Tell them to think for themselves. They may find that liberating. 3. When giving a general order, explain its purpose. If the chief believes that's beneath his dignity, he's in the wrong job. Jerry -- Discovery consists of seeing what everybody has seen, and thinking what nobody has thought. .. Albert Szent-Gyorgi �����������������������������������������������������������������������
From: Vladimir Vassilevsky on 16 Mar 2010 20:56 Rune Allnor wrote: > It's only madmen like you and me who think freely and speak > our minds. Dr. Rune, The fact that you are madman who has somewhat different values then most of people doesn't make you independent and free thinker either. You are still a bio robot of the same model. :)))))) BTW, Steve Underwood already recommended a book: R. Cialdini "Psychology of persuasion". I second his recommendation; very enlightening. > No one doing what we do, would have been able to > survive anywhere else than in the West, at any time other than > after WWII. Really? God's fools, shamans, clergy, alchemists and such existed at all times. Vladimir Vassilevsky DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant http://www.abvolt.com
From: steveu on 17 Mar 2010 00:12 >steveu wrote: > > ... > >> A law for engineers course is hardly going to substitute for a law degree. >> However, I have too often seen engineers stumbling into trouble because of >> a complete lack of legal grounding. This is especially true for people in >> small organisations, where there is not a strong framework around them to >> protect them. > >All an engineer needs to know about law is that he needs to ask, not assume. This presupposes that people spot when they are assuming. America has some of the more interesting legislation for surprising the unwary engineer. Have you ever looked at engineers after a training session from a lawyer on something like RICO or FCPA for engineers? They typically realise they may have been doing some legally iffy things for years, without even questioning whether there was anything they should be asking questions about. >> I don't know as much about my body as a doctor. However, if I lacked the >> grounding to even grasp what he is talking about, I would feel extremely >> vulnerable - as indeed I would be in a world where a fair percentage of >> private doctors are about as trustworthy as politicians. > >Sure. Where did you learn enough about your body to understand your >doctor, in hygiene class? In any class? Probably not. Nothing needs to be learned in college. Clearly, anything can be learned in other ways. You and I didn't study DSP at college, because nobody ran DSP courses back then. That didn't stop us learning - in some small part by building the foundations of the DSP business. The key thing with law for engineers is engineers ought to be introduced to its implications at the earliest possible stage. A several hour course as a small part of an engineering degree program seems like the ideal place. Steve
From: Rob Gaddi on 17 Mar 2010 12:06 On Tue, 16 Mar 2010 23:12:44 -0500 "steveu" <steveu(a)n_o_s_p_a_m.coppice.org> wrote: > [snip] > > This presupposes that people spot when they are assuming. America has > some of the more interesting legislation for surprising the unwary > engineer. Have you ever looked at engineers after a training session > from a lawyer on something like RICO or FCPA for engineers? They > typically realise they may have been doing some legally iffy things > for years, without even questioning whether there was anything they > should be asking questions about. > > [snip] Steve, I think if your engineering is violating RICO you're doing it wrong. I've written up many a change order, and none of them have involved the phrase "Have Skinny Mike's knees broken." -- Rob Gaddi, Highland Technology Email address is currently out of order
From: steveu on 17 Mar 2010 12:53
>On Tue, 16 Mar 2010 23:12:44 -0500 >"steveu" <steveu(a)n_o_s_p_a_m.coppice.org> wrote: > >> [snip] >> >> This presupposes that people spot when they are assuming. America has >> some of the more interesting legislation for surprising the unwary >> engineer. Have you ever looked at engineers after a training session >> from a lawyer on something like RICO or FCPA for engineers? They >> typically realise they may have been doing some legally iffy things >> for years, without even questioning whether there was anything they >> should be asking questions about. >> >> [snip] > >Steve, I think if your engineering is violating RICO you're doing it >wrong. I've written up many a change order, and none of them have >involved the phrase "Have Skinny Mike's knees broken." Various industry standards groups hover on the borders of being legally classified as a Corrupt Organisation. Steve |