5 ms·

> But if an engineer had a choice to put in a part that was 10 percent more expensive but wasn't something that was needed for a four-year mission, they just we

> But if an engineer had a choice to put in a part that was 10 percent more expensive but wasn't something that was needed for a four-year mission, they just went ahead and did that. And they wouldn't necessarily tell management. Engineers doing good things even though everyone else doesnt want to care & just wants something cheap. Heartbreaking long tale of humanity, that opting to do good things is so hard to get buy in on.

chasd00 4y ago
not understanding and following requirements isn't something engineers should be doing IMO
- marssaxman 4y ago
  Understanding requirements so well that you give the customer what they actually do want, even though they don't yet know they want it, sounds like really great engineering.
  - FastMonkey 4y ago
    There is balance in all things. Engineers shouldn't be ignored, but we are also not omniscient. As an engineer myself, having worked on product and having been a client of engineers working on products for me, I can tell you that engineers that think they have an inside track on what the client "really" wants are often wrong. The feeling is similar to that false confidence you get in any field when you have learned just the absolute basics, and I have felt it myself. That's why you don't just go and spend 10% of the clients budget without talking to them first. If clients are saying they don't want a feature, it's quite probable that the person you're dealing with actually knows what they want, and what they want is not what you've come up with. A lot of projects that filter their way through HN die because the engineers are solving the problem for themselves and not talking to users. That is also the pattern you see with a lot of "what I wish I had known when I started my project" posts on here. Avoiding a conversation with the client because you're afraid they won't approve the feature you want to add is not really great engineering.
- nonrandomstring 4y ago
  > not understanding and following requirements isn't something engineers should be doing IMO I disagree, engineers are not robots. Good engineers may second guess and get technically involved in adjusting badly written instructions or mangled schematics, and do so all the time. And no, the "process" for querying and changing requirements is not always practical. Of course good engineers should document and report all deviations from the recspec and talk to the quality manager. Spotting that a capacitor or diode voltage is under-rated and swapping the part number, no problem. Upgrading a part if it makes no other difference seems okay too. I've been very grateful to fab or pick and place engineers who corrected a silly mistake I made instead of just sending me back a board that obviously wouldn't work. But those kind of people who take initiatives are rare to find these days,
- bad416f1f5a2 4y ago
  Squeezing in “a little extra” is a time-honored tradition in engineering.
  - ridgeguy 4y ago
    That's why the really useful dials go to 11.
- tejtm 4y ago
  Deciding that the Engineers don't understand is not something a bureaucracy should be doing, period.
lkrubner 4y ago
Engineer: "Gracious lord and Pharaoh, if we mix this volcanic ash into the mortar, your Pyramid could last for thousands of years." Pharaoh: "But that would be too expensive right? Don't waste the treasury's money. Ordinary mortar is fine." Engineer: (goes off and mixes volcanic ash into the mortar, despite the cost)
- baud147258 4y ago
  Considering how the Pyramid were likely planned as an eternal afterlife home for the Pharaoh, I would have though the answer would be more along the line of 'Of course! I'll go and beat a few peasants for the necessary money'
- JJMcJ 4y ago
  When Frank Lloyd Wright's famous Falling Water home was being built, the contractor realized Wright had too little reinforcing rod in the section of the house cantilevered over the creek, so added more against Wright's orders. Otherwise a structural failure would likely have happened.
m34 4y ago
I was on the receiving end of numerous support cases caused by what has to be on the sub-dollar cent savings (per single sku) region when multiple mainboard manufacturers chose to use capacitors with slightly worse tolerances all of a sudden (~25 years ago). So if the whole process of spec'ing and validating the quality of sourced materials was within their action space, ofc they'd choose (potential) fault-tolerance over price, as it was mission critical. So there might be a reason why we refer to it today as space race and not race to the bottom.

chasd00 4y ago

not understanding and following requirements isn't something engineers should be doing IMO

marssaxman 4y ago
Understanding requirements so well that you give the customer what they actually do want, even though they don't yet know they want it, sounds like really great engineering.
- FastMonkey 4y ago
  There is balance in all things. Engineers shouldn't be ignored, but we are also not omniscient. As an engineer myself, having worked on product and having been a client of engineers working on products for me, I can tell you that engineers that think they have an inside track on what the client "really" wants are often wrong. The feeling is similar to that false confidence you get in any field when you have learned just the absolute basics, and I have felt it myself. That's why you don't just go and spend 10% of the clients budget without talking to them first. If clients are saying they don't want a feature, it's quite probable that the person you're dealing with actually knows what they want, and what they want is not what you've come up with. A lot of projects that filter their way through HN die because the engineers are solving the problem for themselves and not talking to users. That is also the pattern you see with a lot of "what I wish I had known when I started my project" posts on here. Avoiding a conversation with the client because you're afraid they won't approve the feature you want to add is not really great engineering.
nonrandomstring 4y ago
> not understanding and following requirements isn't something engineers should be doing IMO I disagree, engineers are not robots. Good engineers may second guess and get technically involved in adjusting badly written instructions or mangled schematics, and do so all the time. And no, the "process" for querying and changing requirements is not always practical. Of course good engineers should document and report all deviations from the recspec and talk to the quality manager. Spotting that a capacitor or diode voltage is under-rated and swapping the part number, no problem. Upgrading a part if it makes no other difference seems okay too. I've been very grateful to fab or pick and place engineers who corrected a silly mistake I made instead of just sending me back a board that obviously wouldn't work. But those kind of people who take initiatives are rare to find these days,
bad416f1f5a2 4y ago
Squeezing in “a little extra” is a time-honored tradition in engineering.
- ridgeguy 4y ago
  That's why the really useful dials go to 11.
tejtm 4y ago
Deciding that the Engineers don't understand is not something a bureaucracy should be doing, period.

lkrubner 4y ago

Engineer: "Gracious lord and Pharaoh, if we mix this volcanic ash into the mortar, your Pyramid could last for thousands of years." Pharaoh: "But that would be too expensive right? Don't waste the treasury's money. Ordinary mortar is fine." Engineer: (goes off and mixes volcanic ash into the mortar, despite the cost)

baud147258 4y ago
Considering how the Pyramid were likely planned as an eternal afterlife home for the Pharaoh, I would have though the answer would be more along the line of 'Of course! I'll go and beat a few peasants for the necessary money'
JJMcJ 4y ago
When Frank Lloyd Wright's famous Falling Water home was being built, the contractor realized Wright had too little reinforcing rod in the section of the house cantilevered over the creek, so added more against Wright's orders. Otherwise a structural failure would likely have happened.

m34 4y ago

I was on the receiving end of numerous support cases caused by what has to be on the sub-dollar cent savings (per single sku) region when multiple mainboard manufacturers chose to use capacitors with slightly worse tolerances all of a sudden (~25 years ago). So if the whole process of spec'ing and validating the quality of sourced materials was within their action space, ofc they'd choose (potential) fault-tolerance over price, as it was mission critical. So there might be a reason why we refer to it today as space race and not race to the bottom.