OT: Management and spacecraft

Most large companies with an engineering department have rules that require anyone at a given level of engineering management to have a certain minimum number of direct reports. After some thought, I have realized that this is because there is a staggeringly exact analogy between the task of engineering management and the problem of thermal management on spacecraft. A stationary spacecraft will freeze on its shadow side and boil on its Sunward side. A spacecraft wholly in the umbra of some other object needs to have its own source of heat to replace radiated losses. All temperature-sensitive equipment needs to be mounted and monitored with careful thought to internally generated heat. The spacecraft is covered in foils, paints and blankets designed to reject solar radiation. Complex arrangements of fins and heatsinks are required to dump internally-generated heat, plus whatever solar radiation leaks in, out the night-side of the craft.

Replace the concept of "solar heat" with "ire from upper management" and the analogy is clear. A successful manager spins gently at all times, like the Apollo Command and Service Module in lunar coast mode, so that no single surface receives 100% of incident anger. The anger wattage decreases exponentially as the manager moves further away from upper management.

Direct reports are a manager's heatsinks; they cling to the main body of the craft and increase the surface area available for radiating anger away from the craft. Under some circumstances, they also form the basis of a sublimation cooling system; the coolant absorbs as much heat as possible, then is boiled into space.

Since incident anger is directly proportional to the manager's stature in the company, the heatsink area required to dissipate that anger naturally also has to increase as the manager is promoted. Company policies about the number of direct reports necessary for a manager to hold a specific title reflect the amount of anger that title is required to dissipate.

Reply to
larwe
Loading thread data ...

snip

This analogy is entertaining, could it be called the fan out of the manager?

But why this sudden reflexion is it caused by the ageing process?

Reply to
Lanarcam

Sure, this way the distribution of memos can be modeled as propagation delay and the rumor mill can be modeled as crosstalk (since at least where I work, 75% or more of the rumor mill consists of mis-eavesdropped conversations in parallel management streams).

I have these philosophical moments at least a couple of times a week, either when shooting the breeze with a couple of coworkers, or when at a bar or coffee shop (it is depressing that I earn >10x more cash using my PDA and cellphone to work on technical writing and contract work from Starbucks than in my day job. I telnet into my PowerPC development system at home using the PDA).

So I've decided to lead in every chapter in my upcoming book with an insane story like this. The introduction tells people that if they don't find them amusing, to put the book away for five years, become an embedded engineer, then read the stories again, at which time all the stories will make sense.

I'll illustrate with another such theory I developed quite recently while in some excruciating "training" required for all employees who have the potential to become management.

I won't mention what particular buzzword the training concerns, because that would identify my employer. Suffice it to say that the training was marginally useful for people trying to develop a new accounting system but worthless for a design engineer.

Anyway, if you've ever read a management or marketing textbook, you've probably seen the weird pseudomathematics they use to salt their drivel. I think that in their minds, the writing process goes something like this: "Fluff... platitude... blinding flash of the obvious... irrational generalization" and then they realize that such a document will only capture part of their target market. In order to capture more people, they need to make it "scientific" and so these process trainers are hell-bent on characterizing processes as mathematical functions. Hence, you'll see a lot of statements like "f(x) = y where f is the process, x is the inputs and y is the finished goods". They then apply a lot of pseudoscience of the general caliber of "Three apples plus five oranges equals eleven persimmons plus an angel's feather".

After listening to this nonsense and doing numerous silly exercises with paper and rubber bands, I came up with my own corollary.

For every f(x1,x2,...,xn) = y1,y2,...yn, where f is a manufacturing function, x1 through xn are raw materials and y1 through yn are products, there exists a complementary function f'(y), the inputs to which are finished goods and the outputs of which are raw materials and leisure time.

I've yet to be seriously challenged on this and I am tempted to see if I can get it surreptitiously included in the next revision of the training materials for that course.

Reply to
larwe

Sounds like WEEE to me. :)

Kelly

Reply to
Kelly Hall

If only WEEE generated leisure time!

Reply to
larwe

On 4 Sep, in article snipped-for-privacy@larwe.com "larwe" wrote: ....

Sounds more like the good old Super High Intensity Training....

--
Paul Carpenter          | paul@pcserviceselectronics.co.uk
    PC Services
              GNU H8 & mailing list info
             For those web sites you hate
Reply to
Paul Carpenter

Heh, this reminds me of a very misguided "quality" training program that was forced on us at a former employer.

Mandatory for all employees from clerical staff to design engineers. The second sign of problems was a basic statistics refresher that took 3 sessions. Finally got around to their real thing which was continuous process improvement. Too bad the manufacturing plant was 4000 miles away and the sustaining and product engineering guys were too busy fighting fires to go :-)

I kept asking how to apply their ideas to ASIC design, and after numerous examples of the great things quality did for band-aid adhesive application processing (apparently these guys had been at Johnson & Johnson) I decided to risk the ire of the quality police, found my boss, told him it was entirely stupid and a waste of time.

I have nothing but admiration for whomever sold this boat-load of crap to management :-)

(At another company I later went to a really good quality class at Motorola, and that was very worthwhile and applicable to design, so please don't conclude I am against quality quality training.)

Reply to
Andrew Dyer

Ah, I think I know exactly what you're talking about, because unless I'm much mistaken it was the same underlying buzzword as the training I'm talking about (it was the three-day statistics refresher course that led me to this conclusion). I sincerely hope you have put this trying time behind you and completely forgotten all the acronyms and hokum you were fed.

You'll be pleased to know that all the principal sponsors of the program abandoned it long ago.

Reply to
larwe

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.