Re: Overhead and the Future

Hawco, Paul R. wrote:

> Paul,
>
> I am always puzzled by the reluctance for management to support the
> tools and the people needed to run these tools. If you think about it -
> the whole revenue generating process is about successfully completing
> projects. The engineering\design staff on these projects are ultimately
> responsible for supporting the overhead costs of the entire company -
> the president, v.p's, office admin, HR, Accounting, IT, sales, travel,
> leasing ... I have recommended very good people only to have them
> rejected because they cost $5/hr more than "Joe Average".
>
> In my mind most companies have too many people (and thus too much
> overhead) in the mix - this blurb is about some of the issues we face
> and where I think the future is going.
>
> Plant Design SW Pitfalls
>
> * Management - lack of understanding of: skills required, effective
> training and staffing, the strengths and weaknesses of the
> software\hardware, resource management - unrealistic expectations

1. Agreed.

> * Engineers - unwilling to adopt new practices

2) Sometimes yes, but an engineer's role/tasks hasn't substantially changed due to the use of software.

> * Designers - poor teamwork, failure to adopt standards

3) Agreed.

> * Support Staff - key personnel, has the power to do the most good
> and the most harm- how do you judge them if you don't understand what
> they do - when possible don't have all your eggs in one basket.
>
> * Don't fight the software - new tools often require a change in
> work practices

4) Sometimes good enough is good enough.

> * Checking - the power of the software is in automation, the
> checking process must still be taken seriously - checking now requires
> reviewing "log" files.

5) Agreed. Please explain reviewing log files.

> * Unrealistic Expectations - compressed schedules, last minute
> staffing

6) Yup.

> * Failure to Exploit the software - takes a while to figure out how
> to make the best use of all the features

7) After my previous bitching about SPR, I learned a bit more about it and used some of the more powerful features. It can be very useful, but it's still kludgy and user-hostile.

> * Software Bugs - need to understand that they exist, effects can
> usually be minimized by careful planning\checking - generally never be
> the 1st to adopt a new version
>
> * Complicated - it is not AutoCAD, don't treat it like it is

8) I monkeyed around with COADE's 3D piping design program and the equipment builder (which are based on AutoCAD) and was able to put together piping systems and vessels within a few hours.

> High-End SW Advantages
>
>
>
> * Market Share - software has a solid user base, the projects
> modeled are very valuable and clients are likely to want to reuse the
> data

9) Which software do you refer to here?

> * Add-ons - more & more 3rd party add-ons becoming available to
> extend capabilities

1. For which design programs?

> * Data Reuse - proper planning allows data to be reused through all
> aspects of project and potentially on new projects

1. True.

> * Automation - more & more can be done with less people

1. True.

> * Tight Integration of Disciplines
>
> * New Software - next generation software is tightly integrated with
> standard business products - MS Office, email, web

1. This is overrated.

> * Don't fight the software - consider adopting "out of the box"
> configurations as new standards - most of the work has already been done
>
> * Checking - the power of the software is in automating the design
> process

1. As long as the modelers are working from proven designs.

> * Data Management - features to assist in managing project data
> integrity on a file and user basis - very important on large projects
>
> * Complicated - you never master the best software - you always find
> room for growth no matter how long you use it
>
>
>
> What does Higher-End Software (increased capabilities and automation)
> get you?
>
>
>
> * Less people are required to do the same work
>
> * Less people reduces the number of costly software licenses
> required
>
> * Less people reduces hardware costs
>
> * Less support staff required - IT, HR, Admin
>
> * Less people means less office space required
>
> * Less people means a more manageable office
>
> * Less people means more daily interaction, less meetings, less
> surprises - more effective communication
>
> * Less people allows for better use of technology - voice
> recognition, ...
>
> * Less people allows for a less costly and easier implementation of
> new technology - Increased Efficiency
>
> * Less people means it is easier to manage the down times
>
> * Initial training costs will be higher, should be supplemented with
> yearly updates (in-house)
>
> * The average engineering\design salary will be higher

1. I agree with all the "less people" points above, but managers typically like to have "more people" under them. There is a tipping point where having enough underlings allows the manager to have plausible deniability about the detail work and not have to be called on it.

> How to leverage High-End Software
>
>
>
> * Monitor your software usage - EVERY company I have been with has
> been carrying more than they needed - a lot of companies still pay
> maintenance on obsolete engineering software that is no longer being
> used because the IT department gets an invoice and doesn't know what it
> is for but still pays it.

1. Probably true.

> * Everyone has a role - Mentoring - not all tasks require years of
> experience, some tasks can be delegated to capable junior staff who
> receive specific training

1. Absolutely true.

> * Isolate tasks, set achievable goals and hold people accountable
> for achieving these goals

1. Make sure the goals are clearly defined and help them along the way if needed.

> * Partner technical experts with experienced field staff

1. Absolutely. This is critical.

> * It is cheaper to hire 10 experts who will command above average
> salaries than it is to hire 20 who struggle to achieve lesser results
>
> * It's all about building a team - make it the best work place
> environment - if engineers and designers are well compensated they will
> stay put - not many of us really want to change jobs\locations every 2-3
> years. For the in-between times encourage people to take extended
> periods off. Most of us would take a couple of months off if we are
> given a fixed start and end date for the furlough in advance.

20) Agreed.

Having responded to all these virtually guarantees that I won't be working anytime soon in the industry. Nobody likes a boat-rocker.

Paul Received on Thu Sep 08 11:06:00 2005