I have, and regularly do. There is usually an owner and then the owner has between zero and a dozen employees right there. Some companies start that way. Others became that way. The usual, taxes and red tape increase, as a consequence they start outsourcing this, that and the other thing. Pretty soon all that's left is a dozen people, if that. The good old Laffer curve at work.
In the day of fast Internet connections and cheap phone rates it has become very easy. The only real requirement is a willingness to adopt some time zone adjustment of one's work schedule (this is how I became a guy who often rises at the crack of dawn) and learn to understand thick accents.
I've seen startups, VC's, etc. *start* this way. But, can't recall any actively *deciding* on it as a business model to be actively pursued.
Agreed. I couldn't light and heat someone's cubicle for the price of a high speed connection!
In my case, it afforded me the exact opposite freedom -- to be able to flip my sleep-wake cycle to one that is more in tune with my biological preferences instead of forcing it to adhere to "that of the masses". (of course, it also affords other scheduling benefits...)
So far, "accents" haven't been a problem. Though I've had to "make apologies" to neighbors for "unexpected" visitors ("Who owns that Rolls Royce that was parked in your driveway?" "Why is the UPS/FedEx guy ALWAYS at your place?" "How come your lights are on all hours of the night and people are 'dropping in' at weird times/days?" etc.)
By far, the *worst* is the assumption that just because I work for myself, that my time is infinitely *flexible*: "Could you drive me to my hair dresser's appointment?" "Gee, what's wrong with your *son*?" "Oh, I don't want to BOTHER him..." "???? (but you think it's OK to BOTHER me?)"
(sigh)
Or, folks thinking you can -- AND WANT TO! -- fix their PC/DVR/etc. Like the old agdage of never letting anyone know you can repair a TV lest you end up in the *free* TV repair business! :-/
(Amazing how few LAWYERS, DOCTORS, DENTISTS, etc. that have no problem ASKING for these sorts of favors are *slow* to volunteer
One prototype is no prototype. In most cases a small production run of
3 to 10 units is being made. The cost usually is the same because most of the expenses go into setting up the machinery.
All the more reason to build a simulator. A simulator is also very handy for exhaustive testing. A couple of hours can be equal to many months of real service so its extremely usuful for catching one-in-a-million bugs before the customer does.
--
Failure does not prove something is impossible, failure simply
indicates you are not using the right tools...
nico@nctdevpuntnl (punt=.)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Just get a good conference call phone from Polycom. Works like a charm!
formatting link
--
Failure does not prove something is impossible, failure simply
indicates you are not using the right tools...
nico@nctdevpuntnl (punt=.)
--------------------------------------------------------------
For plain vanilla-ish designs/technology, that may be the case. E.g., it costs "nothing" to build 3 sets of boards, etc.
OTOH, if you have a 3 ton piece of cast-then-machined steel, you probably don't build very many of them until you are
*damn* sure you've got it right! :>
Likewise, if you're building 10-12 of something *annually*, keeping one "for the geeks to play with" can be a *huge* investment. Customer calls and wants to buy one *now*. How much you wanna bet The Engineering Machine finds its way onto a flatbed by morning? :<
Yes. Many of these devices can easily/cheaply be simulated (to the 0-th order). But, about all that usually lets you do is verify that the basic algorithms *appear* to be working. You don't gain much useful experience with real-world applications of that "thing".
E.g., I recall a customer request to repurpose a tablet press (this is a machine that compresses "powder"/granulation to dry-form "pills"/tablets) to make the explosive pellets used in automobile airbag deployment. A very different sort of "process" to control than one in which you are compressing "harmless powders"!
And, if you are playing with totally new technologies, all bets are off. E.g., when I was working with the Kurzweil Reading Machine, *every* unit was a prototype (i.e., S/N 1, S/N 2, S/N 3...). You learned to keep a log of all of the modifications made to each individual unit (along with their causality) so you could bring other units up to the same level of performance *if* the problems encountered proved to be inherent in the design (and not a consequence of the
*particular* components used in that machine's fabrication).
[E.g., early machines were delivered with (genuine) core; newer models had *semiconductor* memory -- oooh, ahhh! :> ]
Given the shoestring budget that we operated on, if we had purchased the parts for a machine, we were already planning on *building* it and *selling* it. There was no "stockroom".
If you're using a 3KHz comm channel, you might want to check the date on your office calendar...
Then why *employ* them? Personally, I only want to work with people who are passionate about their beliefs and *objective* in their presentation and defense. No room for religion/dogma, here! If joey can't play well with others, then let him play elsewhere.
Like 3KHz comm channels.
Great! As long as she is willing to make the commute, be there for the hours that *you* also want to be there and is happy doing the work, then it works for you and her. When/if that changes for either of you, it breaks.
Perhaps its a consequence of age or life experiences but I find many people eager to trade money for *time* and lifestyle changes.
One colleague would like to be *semi*-semi-retired. His financial needs are set for *long* after he's dead. His health is "stable". But, he's bored. He misses the challenges that he fought through to get to where he is, now. But, is by no means interested in returning to "work". He'd probably be willing to work for free but such an arrangement would be too obvious/"pathetic". If he had something to occupy him for 4-10 hours a week, he'd probably be thrilled. Especially knowing someone else would be handling the "dirty work" (running the actual experiments, gathering the data, etc.) and taking the risks. A chance to reconnect with his Engineering Spirit without making a 40hr commitment.
Another colleague had to leave the workforce to attend to the upbringing of her small children. She misses the activity and structure (it must be mind-numbing to chase little kids around all day!). But, she doesn't have time during the week to divert to a job. Especially 40 hours plus travel, morning toilet, etc. 8-12 hours on the weekends would keep her sane while her husband "did his fair share" with the kids.
Another is a ski-bum. Come first snowfall, he wants to be on the slopes. Some time around Easter (April), he'll be willing to return to work.
My IE is the exact opposite. He wants his Summers off.
*I* like working at night. Other friends prefer the day. Sure, we can come to some compromise -- where NONE of us are
*truly* happy.
I suspect we've all proven to "who/whatever" that we are successful, already have enough money to address our "wants" and are now looking for alternatives that add more value and enjoyment (and control) to our lives.
As one friend is fond of saying, "No one's last words were ever 'I should have WORKED more'!" :>
Sure! But being *forced* to be around them in an artificially created situation rarely is! Do you schedule parties for 9AM? How many times do you go to a morning matinee? You can do those things at any time you want -- so why don't you pick the same hours (albeit on the weekend, etc.) that you would FOR WORK?
[Do you often go to the office *for* a party? (other than to save the cost of renting a hall) Or, would you rather be out in a green, openspace playing ultimate and watching the kids splash in a nearby pool? Same people. Why do you think most folks have such different ideas of how they
*choose* to spend THEIR time -- not the time that you've PURCHASED from them?]
Only for POTS. I can push any sort of audio I want across an internet connection.
Sure! But it depends on how much you *need* the work (and the type of work you're looking for). I know several folks who would work for "expenses+benefits" but don't really have that option.
Sad. But, it's hard to find a spot where you can be challenged (in his case) -- even if you are no longer "current" with technology. Often the older engineers (e.g., 60-ish) at big firms (usually don't hang around small ones) get pushed aside. As if the firm wants to avoid age discrimination lawsuits but can't really think of anything for the guy to do...
Actually, the IE lives in New Hampshire so the ski-bum would probably *love* that! (though I think he's a bit of a snob and might scoff at east coast "hills")
*I* have a great work environment! I work with the people that I want on the projects that I want and (largely) in the *way* that I want. I genuinely enjoy going to work each day. (I've had clients and clients' employees "complain" that I smile a lot :> )
But, many people are stuck in 9-5's. Someone *else* has decided that they should do there work *here*, between these hours, etc.
I've found that freer work environments (with responsible people) tend to result in greater satisfaction and *more* effort from the parties involved. As if there was some obligation planted on them by this freedom that they need to assure themselves that they've repaid.
I didn't say company picnic. I was trying to illustrate that "you" wouldn't chose to have a party "at the office" unless you were trying to save on the cost of renting a hall: "It's my daughter's 16th birthday. Can we use the conference room at the office to have her party?" (WTF??) vs. "Let's have Betty's party over at the park"
Company picnics/parties are a perfect example of being "forced" (coerced) to spend time with people that you might not *choose* to be around if your time was your own. It's interesting to see which folks show up "for a free meal", "to brown nose", "because they enjoy the event/company", or "not at all".
I put in several hours weekly at a local nonprofit. I enjoy the company of the other volunteers that I see and work with, there. We all get along admirably together towards the goals of that organization.
Yet, I never attend the "XMAS party" nor the "volunteer appreciation dinner". I choose not to spend time with them when the time is my own. OTOH, I meet a few of them every other weekend for a friendly lunch, together.
On Sun, 13 May 2012 20:00:12 -0700, Don Y wrote: [snip]
This is the big problem you face with the decomposed company. Society has raised multiple generations of people who cannot make decisions on their own. They need someone in authority to tell them what car to drive, what food to eat, what job to do and how long they have to do it.
A lot of people will "claim" they are free thinkers but they are not. Maybe inside the people who read these news groups there are many free thinkers, but out in the masses it's another story. These people need that structure. They need to know they have to get up at 6 to make that commute. They have to have lunch from noon to one, they have a meeting scheduled for them at 3pm, or they have to schedule a meeting because the boss wants an update.
If Buffet, Gates or Zuckerberg (if his IPO pans out) where to take a random group of people and tell them they could do anything they wanted; food, energy, mortgage, etc were all taken care of, most would not have a clue where to start. You could tell them "be what ever you want to be, a artist, sculptor, welder, electronics, you pick and become the best you can be", they will wind up sitting in a chair in front of the TV. They will calim they are happy because that is what they have been conditioned to do.
You could tell them "all doors are open" and they will simply look back at you and ask "but which door should I go through...." [as a side note, I will say some would say "tell me which door" so if they fail they can point back at you and say "but you told me to choose this door"]
The key is responsible people, those who want to acheive, rise above, make a difference, challenge the status quo. I think in the greater population of the US and parts of Europe, these qualities are harder and harder to find.
Yes. But that is already evidenced in the distinction between, for example, consultants/contractors and employees. I.e., many couldn't cut it as "independents" simply because there *is* no structure within which to operate. No one standing over their shoulder telling them to fill out their timecard, *now*. Or putting deadlines on when their work is expected to be finished. Or *defining* their work. etc.
Agreed -- as is evidenced by "talk radio", churches, etc. It's also an issue in early childhood development -- "boundaries" give children a sense of safety, caring, etc.
[In _The Price of Everything_, E Porter makes some fascinating assertions about what we "pay" for religion (among other things) and what we are "purchasing" in the process. As well as the relative costs of different religions and the consequences of this "pricing structure". I am always amazed to hear how economists view the world and our transactions within it! No idea if any of it makes any *sense* -- but it is always a refreshingly "different perspective"]
Or, how willing people are to embrace new technologies, ideas, etc. Many will shy away or even *cringe* at the idea of trying something different. Coming up with irrational explanations to justify adherence to *existing* ways of doing things.
[The example I use for these folks is: Their stone-age ancestors used *wheels*. But they were SQUARE. With continued use, the corners of those wheels would "wear" and gradually become ROUND. At which point, they would be *replaced* -- with nice, new SQUARE ones! :-/ ]
In a micro scale, you can witness that behavior in "programmers". Give many a blank sheet of paper and a task, and they have a *really* hard time getting started. OTOH, give them an existing program (regardless of how poorly it is written) and a BIGGER task, and they have no problem tackling it -- WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK ALREADY CREATED (regardless of how crappy that might be).
Look at how few FOSS projects get started (and carry on) vs. the number of folks swarming around *existing* code bases... making incremental changes to something that has already been fleshed out.
I see this sort of behavior in some of the activities that I engage in. Give me an empty room and stuff to furnish it with and I'll neatly push everything up against the walls. Then, stand back and cringe at how *wrong* it is! But, not be able to get it to "right". OTOH, arrange the furnishings *for* me and I will be able to tell you exactly what *is* wrong.
Put a paintbrush, pastel crayon or charcoal stick in my hands and you're likely to get something that looks like a 3 year old made it -- regardless of how well I can *control* the medium. OTOH, show me an unfinished work of art and I can tell you what value changes needed to be incorporated, how the composition fails, etc. and exactly what it needs to "fix it".
I'm either a lousy manager or The Perfect Manager, depending on the personalities involved. If you need a Mommy/Daddy to remind you to brush your teeth and eat your vegetables (i.e., meet your deadlines, etc.), I will fail miserably. "You're a big boy, now. You know what needs to be done! If you tell me you washed your hands (are on schedule), I'll believe you. I TRUST YOU (I don't need to go feel the soap to see if it is 'wet')"
[If I don't trust you, why would I be working with you and/or tying my fate to yours?]
I feel a manager's role is to ensure a common vision, resolve conflict and provide/acquire resources. "What do you *need* to get your job done, effectively?" It's my job to ensure you have it and remove impediments. I.e., manager works *for* the folks he manages.
Your tone almost suggests a "conspiracy". I don't know if this is exogenous conditioning or an endogenous personality characteristic (flouride in the water supply?? :> )
Many people apparently die in fires because they "follow the leader" instead of thinking for themselves. ("Um, who elected *this* guy as Leader? What are his qualifications? Has he a proven track record getting out of burning buildings?")
*AND*, if some opt NOT to follow that leader, folks get very upset. I'm pretty sure they aren't upset because of some overwhelming concern for you, personally (they might never have met you before the fire broke out!). Rather, they are distressed by the possibility that there is now an ALTERNATIVE line of thought -- and they have to reevaluate *their* choice. ("Should I keep following Bob? Or, should I go off with these other folks??") Easier to just badger people into adopting *their* (arbitrary!) decision.
Yup. Neighbor has many health problems. No doubt his MD has been hounding him on them. He's ignored the obvious recommendation to get some exercise (weight) and change his diet (eats *out* every day -- and I'm sure it's not "salad and a turkey club").
[The Cardiologists' Diet: If it tastes good, spit it out!! :> ]
Here comes the diabetes. ("It's not too bad. Just another pill I'll have to take").
Then the bladder cancer (this is apparently more common than I would have guessed). Of course, he BLAMEs that on the diabetes pills (possible... but, you *probably* could have avoided that pill in the first place!).
Still no change in diet. Nor exercise regimen.
Next comes the heart attack. Ooops! (Isn't retirement *fun*?!) But, instead of a wake up call, BLAME the doctor for nagging you about your failure to comply with his previous "orders". (Of course, it *must* be the doctor's fault! If he had been a better doctor, he would have sweet-talked you into following his recommendations instead of just TELLING you... after all, he should be MORE concerned about the health of your body than the body's OCCUPANT!)
And have you given any thought as to how you should be using your health experiences to provide lifestyle suggestions to your son? And grandkids? I wonder if they'll BLAME *you* for their future problems??
[Ick! Messed up pronouns throughout that!]
Agreed. A colleague claimed that most people (speaking about
*engineers*!) are incapable of abstract thought. I found his claim, at the time, alarming. But, I wonder how much truth that statement embodies? How often are queries met with "Why would you want to do *that*?" -- when the reason behind the decision will have no bearing on the question itself!
As I said, elsewhere, I think I can get an initial team together that would easily, effectively and GLADLY work in such an environment. But, adding to it, over time, or replacing parts of it would be *really* hard. I don't know anyone under 30 that I would even consider -- and I think you need young minds to bring in new approaches (and, as a friend pointed out, "They're FAST!" :> ). When *I* want out (or
*die*) where does the organization go?
Compensation and legal structure are an even bigger nightmare. Treat people like employees and you get "employee behavior" from them. 1099 them and there's the ever present pressure of "being gone tomorrow" (even if it is only because of an absence of need for their services -- nothing personal). If you want folks to make a commitment to you, you have to make a *commitment* to them! And, if you organize them as shareholders, you end up with too many voices thinking they have a *right* to decide the direction of the organization. etc.
Of course, there are consequences to each of these approaches in how you provide "benefits" to them.
I think the *technology* to do this is a no-brainer. And, if you're flexible enough to allow it to decompose to the level of "individuals", then "small groups" is just another point on the continuum.
Likewise, the legal and financial issues can no doubt be hammered out -- with enough paperwork.
But, as you've said, finding the right people *tomorrow* is a huge challenge. Especially among folks who delight in their work!
Not so much now, but years ago I'd kruft something together in Quickbasic, "brag" about it to an otherwise disinterested programmer and watch him enthusiastically code up a fully functional replacement in C.
"Manipulation" (which is basically what this is) can easily backfire.
I had an employer who used to effectively *dare* me to prove a point. Or, disprove *his* point. I'd invest a fair bit of effort throwing something together -- much to his delight. He could refine his ideas quickly (and empirically) at my expense.
Then, ONE *DAY* (i.e., step function), I just shrugged my shoulders (stopped playing the game). Suddenly, he'd lost that leverage. And, because he had relied on its DISHONESTY, he no longer had any effective way of motivating me to take on those challenges responsibly.
He won, in the short term, and lost in the long run...
I think honest and aboveboard approaches prove to be more effective, in the long run. Respect for each other, etc.
E.g., you have a project manager with an $X budget (for supplies, services, etc.)? Have him plan ROUGHLY what the cash flow needs to be. Then, push the planned amount of cash into a checking/prepaid CC account monthly (giving you some ability to monitor it without MICROmanaging it!) and let the project manager spend it as he sees fit! (knowing that he will have to account for his choices, later). I.e., you trust him with making decisions that will largely influence the success of the project (and the resources you've invested in it!), yet you won't trust him with what is often a *small* amount of CASH?? (tens of $K) Where's the logic in that? Why do you/finance need to get involved in all those decisions when *he* is ultimately responsible for the project's success?
Only a cretin wouldn't understand the need for a company to make money to survive. To "produce". etc. And, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to sort out what role each player *should* (in theory) be playing in that process. "This is your job because THIS IS YOUR JOB!" (not because I'm tricking you into performing it, etc.)
I've been told that, in some workplaces, employers have to *coddle* employees! Effectively *thank* them for coming to work "on time"... (WTF??) [note that I'm not talking about prima donna's but, rather, average joe's!]
And we know just how much control we have over *management*, eh? :>
Again, it depends on the size of the investment (i.e. potential sale!) represented by that prototype. For a $20M company to let a $1M piece of equipment sit in Engineering, that's a *huge* investment, on their part!
How much time do you think would actually be *needed* on a wire-EDM machine after "release"? What are you likely to change -- some aspect of the user interface? Support for new input\output formats? etc. Are you going to tie up a piece of equipment INDEFINITELY that could otherwise bring a sizable bit of money onto your balance sheet?
OTOH, if it's a $20K item, it's pocket change (anything less than that isn't even worth discussing :-/ )
Similarly, you may not be able to *use* that device without items that a customer would have in the course of his/her business.
E.g., the friend who designed dynamometers isn't likely to have an Indy car engine "sitting around" for those high horsepower tests. And, it's doubtful that a race car team is going to *lend* him one during the racing season!
It's different if you're designing microwave ovens, GPS systems, process control systems, etc.
In my PPoE, we had several hangar queens, for each project, laying around. We also kept the compliance test unit in a box in the closet, just for reference. When we did compliance tests on devices that attached to the main device, we always took the original test specimen back so we knew what we had. I was once burned by a "production" model that wasn't really.
It was either move or be the Wallmart greeter. ;-)
Again, that is *not* the case where I'm working now. The boss actively sought out gray-hairs. Wasn't true in IBM, either. It's been the smaller companies that I've found illegally discriminating.
Yeah, they're just big enough to suck. ;-)
Then I don't understand your bitching, above.
Who's fault is that? I don't tend to whine about other people's problems, when they're perfectly capable of changing their situation.
Sure. In my last job, the new manager treated everyone like a child, while preaching like a Southern Babtist minister. ...a very bad situation.
That makes no sense. Why would I have a personal party on company property? ...and why would anyone presume that it was acceptable to even ask? Well, IBM did have a country club (a real one - 18 holes - designed by Arlold Palmer) at one time. ...but I'm not into golf, either. ;-)
I'd gladly be around them. Let's do lunch. I really don't like the
*organized* events. Some think everyone has to play silly party games.
I understand completely. One difference is that you don't feel you "have to" be there.
LOL! My cell phone tells me to fill out my time card at 4:00 every Friday. I fill it out right there on the phone, before I forget. ;-)
Nonsense.
*You* believe they're irrational. I refuse to text. Is that irrational? To some it's simply nuts.
A triangular wheel takes one bump out per revolution. ;-)
I use templates a *lot*. Doesn't everyone?
Yep. I can't stand working for a control freak. The ones who use passive aggression as a management technique are the worst. Fortunately, I've had few of those.
Agreed! However the manager's primary job is to manage *his* manager (just as mine is to manage mine .5*;).
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.