10 ms·

>Employees at the Renton, Wash., factory where the Max is produced were overworked, exhausted and making mistakes, Mr. Pierson said in an interview. A cascade o

>Employees at the Renton, Wash., factory where the Max is produced were overworked, exhausted and making mistakes, Mr. Pierson said in an interview. A cascade of damaged parts, missing tools and incomplete instructions was preventing planes from being built on time. Executives were pressuring workers to complete planes despite staff shortages and a chaotic factory floor. I wonder how much of this is directly the result of penny pinching by MBA types. I'm gradually coming to believe that non-technical management of technical endeavors is the root of most failure in the engineering domain.

pron 7y ago
Technical management of technical endeavors can be just as bad, although you could be right when you say it's "the root of most failure in the engineering domain," because when technical people manage, the product is often either not delivered, or is delivered but doesn't have any critical failures because people don't want to use it. It's very good when managers have technical expertise in addition, but managerial expertise is much more important in management. Just something I learned in my two-plus decades in the software industry.
- fredley 7y ago
  You need both technical and non-technical management skills, and if you can't get both in the same person (likely!), you need the people from each side in a relationship that's based on trust and recognition of each other's expertise. Too often these relationships break down and become adversarial, to the detriment of everyone involved, and of course the project.
- mihaaly 7y ago
  Well, it is difficult to find an industry with worse track record of product quality and reliability than the software industry, I wouldn't use software development management as reference. (also two decades is software development... and software usage!!) In my experience managers lacking domain knowledge make more harm than good but are excellent putting emphasis on adjacent and auxiliary parts they are good at. Anyone put in charge of something they are not competent in would do the same.
mjevans 7y ago
Also in any domain where failures should not be an option.
- dmead 7y ago
  which failure though? failure to meet deadlines or failure to keep people alive?
txcwpalpha 7y ago
Why does HN love to bash "MBA types" so much? The bit you quoted doesn't even have anything to do with any type of technical background. Do you think that only people with MBAs are taught that they need to meet deadlines and obligations? Do you seriously think that someone with an engineering degree would for some reason say "actually we don't need to meet deadlines, I won't pressure you to finish these planes on time"?
- michaelcampbell 7y ago
  > The bit you quoted doesn't even have anything to do with any type of technical background. That could be why he led with "I wonder..."
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- achillesheels 7y ago
  Because their decision making is political and short-sighted with no sense of ownership of their management decisions for the future of the company; rather they are looking for their next golden parachute.
- mo1ok 7y ago
  Honestly, and I'm being really frank here, a lot of the management "expertise" at fortune 50+ firms that come from traditional (re: MBA) tracks has just two tools in their toolbelt: 1. Meetings to "align" 2. Cracking the whip. That's it. That's all they have. They have poor insight into creating team chemistry, culture, focused work environments, mentorship, long-term planning, QA processes, sourcing efficiency feedback, etc. - all those things that are crucial to boosting productivity and creating supersonic teams. The people that really know their stuff and can work miracles are people that have been in the trenches for 20 years, regardless of profession. And they hands-down make the best managers. That's my honest 2 cents, it's a bit of disgruntlement from working in large enterprise environments with engineering and technology.
  - 7y ago

pron 7y ago

Technical management of technical endeavors can be just as bad, although you could be right when you say it's "the root of most failure in the engineering domain," because when technical people manage, the product is often either not delivered, or is delivered but doesn't have any critical failures because people don't want to use it. It's very good when managers have technical expertise in addition, but managerial expertise is much more important in management. Just something I learned in my two-plus decades in the software industry.

fredley 7y ago
You need both technical and non-technical management skills, and if you can't get both in the same person (likely!), you need the people from each side in a relationship that's based on trust and recognition of each other's expertise. Too often these relationships break down and become adversarial, to the detriment of everyone involved, and of course the project.
mihaaly 7y ago
Well, it is difficult to find an industry with worse track record of product quality and reliability than the software industry, I wouldn't use software development management as reference. (also two decades is software development... and software usage!!) In my experience managers lacking domain knowledge make more harm than good but are excellent putting emphasis on adjacent and auxiliary parts they are good at. Anyone put in charge of something they are not competent in would do the same.

mjevans 7y ago

Also in any domain where failures should not be an option.

dmead 7y ago
which failure though? failure to meet deadlines or failure to keep people alive?

txcwpalpha 7y ago

Why does HN love to bash "MBA types" so much? The bit you quoted doesn't even have anything to do with any type of technical background. Do you think that only people with MBAs are taught that they need to meet deadlines and obligations? Do you seriously think that someone with an engineering degree would for some reason say "actually we don't need to meet deadlines, I won't pressure you to finish these planes on time"?

michaelcampbell 7y ago
> The bit you quoted doesn't even have anything to do with any type of technical background. That could be why he led with "I wonder..."
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
achillesheels 7y ago
Because their decision making is political and short-sighted with no sense of ownership of their management decisions for the future of the company; rather they are looking for their next golden parachute.
mo1ok 7y ago
Honestly, and I'm being really frank here, a lot of the management "expertise" at fortune 50+ firms that come from traditional (re: MBA) tracks has just two tools in their toolbelt: 1. Meetings to "align" 2. Cracking the whip. That's it. That's all they have. They have poor insight into creating team chemistry, culture, focused work environments, mentorship, long-term planning, QA processes, sourcing efficiency feedback, etc. - all those things that are crucial to boosting productivity and creating supersonic teams. The people that really know their stuff and can work miracles are people that have been in the trenches for 20 years, regardless of profession. And they hands-down make the best managers. That's my honest 2 cents, it's a bit of disgruntlement from working in large enterprise environments with engineering and technology.
- 7y ago