9 ms·

Shoutout to a anonymous Boeing engineer sitting in some for a gruesome permanent crisis-meetings, where mostly pr- and mbas talk about what has to be done, but

Shoutout to a anonymous Boeing engineer sitting in some for a gruesome permanent crisis-meetings, where mostly pr- and mbas talk about what has to be done, but not what has to change, especially not about how engineering and QA should have a blocking-veto right for any decision and the ones actually talking about plans to change.

RONROC 3y ago
unreasonably based. there's almost no other take than this, and if there is one, it must address this.
bertil 3y ago
If you want to be the change you want to see in the world, shout in the ether that this engineer will have a job at your organization. That’s what is keeping so many of them silent: a mortgage, school fees, maybe a H1B.
- barelyauser 3y ago
  A man with nothing to lose is the most dangerous.
  - SteveNuts 3y ago
    By far the most effective leadership I’ve worked for are the ones that already have a very comfortable nest egg or are independently wealthy. They’re the ones that aren’t afraid whatsoever to rock the boat or do what they think is right, and are actually able to drive change.
    - gonzo41 3y ago
      Just imagine how people would work if everyone had some basics assured!
      - rvba 3y ago
        I can imagine that some would be incredibly lazy and some efficient. Question is which group would be bigger.
        Teever 3y ago
        No the question is which group will have a bigger influence. Lazy people tend to self sort into irrelevance.
      - docmars 3y ago
        Not that I think assuring basics is a bad thing, quite the opposite — but I think we would see a lot more rude co-workers who are willing to take risks with their working relationships. That is, specifically those with basics assured and still early in their career and/or poor relationship skills to begin with. Those issues already surface in any situation, but it's safe to assume that many hold their tongues because they're afraid of losing their income stream.
    - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
      > They’re the ones that aren’t afraid whatsoever to rock the boat or do what they think is right, and are actually able to drive change. I think a great deal of their ability to drive change is because they know the right things to say to the right people. I.e. they have some diplomatic skills. Because while they might be able to afford to lose their job, they certainly won't drive any change if they actually do lose their job.
      - raxxorraxor 3y ago
        I have never seen an engineering project fail because of poor "relationship skills" - definitions pending. Diplomacy helps, but mostly it is about being open about problems and about pushing that info up the chain of responsibility. If you need diplomacy for this point, you already have a severe problem here. Otherwise the head will also fumble. I have been in expensive meetings talking a lot about parking space organization. This always happens if there is nothing interesting related to the business to talk about. Stuff gets off-topic quickly. That said, change and disruption has a positive connotation in the business of today. But it isn't always positive.
        anonymouskimmer 3y ago
        > Diplomacy helps, but mostly it is about being open about problems and about pushing that info up the chain of responsibility. Then, in my eyes at least, you're talking about either relatively minor things, or things which already fall in the bailiwick of the leader. I'm just a line person with no one under me who could last a max two months without a job but I have no problem communicating problems up the chain. I'm probably naive, but I'd think most other people wouldn't have such problems either. If they do have problems this seems like an organizational issue that even the leaders SteveNuts mentions in the GP wouldn't be able to change.
  - huytersd 3y ago
    What a silly designation to assign to one of the cushiest, indoor, high paying jobs in our society.
    - bertil 3y ago
      Compared to the reality of the situation, I agree that it’s garish, but psychologically, people in cushy situations tend to over-dramatize their setbacks. If they _think_ they have nothing to lose, they will act foolishly just the same as if they really do. If a billionaire slams his toe on the leg of a chair, it still hurts, and being sorry for his real pain isn’t denying his otherwise staggering privilege. It’s an excellent example to use to have him empathize with others. If you want to make them act in society’s interest, you can point out that paying taxes or enforcing environmental regulations won’t prevent them from being rich beyond words. An engineer worried about being fired experiences genuine distress: you can empathize with that there and then because it’s real. Once they have a job, ask them to be more considerate when designing processes or buildings so that everyone can work comfortably in the shade or without having to fear how they are going to feed their family by the end of the week.
- sparrowInHand 3y ago
  Should call them what they are, behavioural hacking to introduce compliant, seddated behaviour, without a longterm grasp of the damage the hacks inflict. Obvious solution? More law-ducttape on the imperfect ape.
- throwawaysleep 3y ago
  > shout in the ether that this engineer will have a job at your organization. This. Or crowdfund a mega million dollar bounty for evidence of certain types of malfeasance. The market seems to generally punish whistleblowers, and understandably so. I have never worked for a company that wasn't violating some contract, regulation, or law. In my first job we were forging stuff for PCI compliance. The next job stored medical records in a Git repo. So most people have something to lose if there is a whistleblower personality around, as much as we might admire them when they reveal the secrets of others. I wouldn't want to work with one. I am not a manager and even as a low level individual contributor I cut regulatory and security corners to keep bosses happy. You would get far more whistleblowers if it didn't essentially mean wrecking your livelihood, even if you are willing to sacrifice your career.
  - specialist 3y ago
    > crowdfund a mega million dollar bounty for evidence of certain types of malfeasance Yes and: Make whistleblowing-for-hire official. IIRC, there's a law practice whose sole activity is suing prescription management practices. Basically forensic accounting meets administrative law. I want more of that. Further: Winner-takes-all seems to be some kind of natural law. And by extension, regulatory capture. Civil society needs countervailing mechanisms that exist outside or separated somehow. I most like ensuring pro-competition and anti-monopoly policies. But monopolies will always exist, eg natural monopolies like utility districts and police, so we also need transparency and accountability hacks like you're suggesting.
    - sparrowInHand 3y ago
      How about, if you can proof your company engages in monopoly practices, you get as a reward, parts of the company to start your own?
  - bertil 3y ago
    Far for me to challenge the idea of a fund and bounties. But that’s a lot of money—more than I can personally fork and more than I’d be comfortable advocating to collect. Again, no criticism of your ambition; I’m just a regular guy trying to do his thing. I do believe that good engineers like their work and drive a lot of self-esteem from it being valued—more than living off a stipend because they shot their career in the foot. It’s well-paid enough they rarely think they need to rely on the generosity of strangers, and that’s not a bad mindset to keep. In circumstances like these, people talk about loyalty, notably to their employer; I don’t think loyalty is a bad value, but in that case, you want to advocate for loyalty to the craft and the corps, not the organization profiting from putting people in danger. Engineering values, like the brass ring some get in Canada, are things that you want to support not by saying “we’ll support you if that blows in your face” but “We want people like you to speak up during our meetings.” Giving engineers a guarantee that their craft, their talent and their willingness to ask tough questions is what you value, as a team lead, is something I occasionally can do (not now, though: changing team) and something I’m happy to compensate at fair market value, because it’s objectively a good thing for me too — not because that would put me at odds with my organization, but I’m willing to sacrifice that for some ideal misaligned with profit. We need to work on getting eggheads at Boeing understand that their cost-cutting was a bad idea (SkyScanner letting you filter-out plane time is beautifully aggressive that way), but in the meantime, we need to tell people facing tough decisions that engineering is full of hard trade-offs but that security is not one of them, and not one that should need charity.
- firstplacelast 3y ago
  This is what I'm hoping for the future, so many will be so poor we won't have mortgages or kids, nothing to lose. But I doubt it.
tiahura 3y ago
An MBA designed MCAS? An MBA designed the door plug installation process? Maybe it’s the Boeing engineers that need some scrutiny?
- iancmceachern 3y ago
  Read about the Space Shuttle Disasters. There are several good books on them.
- mcmcmc 3y ago
  Engineering failures don’t just happen in some contextless organizational vacuum
  - tiahura 3y ago
    Engineers can't fail, it's always management's fault.
    - swexbe 3y ago
      Unironically, yes? Management is where the buck stops.
    - gilbetron 3y ago
      Engineering needs to be embedded in a system that can handle the fact that engineers fail and still produce reliable and effective outputs. The primary purpose of management is making sure such as system exists and functions. Managers are the engineers of the entire meta-system, basically.
    - lou1306 3y ago
      Engineers can fail, and when they don't QA may, but it's management that chose to believe otherwise
    - g-b-r 3y ago
      > Engineers can't fail, it's always management's fault. or, what can engineers possibly know about engineering: https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=213075 https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=213075
JoshTko 3y ago
Can we just agree to not glorify and denigrate people based on title or role? It's a bit silly.
- sgarland 3y ago
  If you’re flying at 500 MPH and 30,000 feet, what department do you want the manufacturer to have paid attention to the most: engineering, or sales?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- bitcharmer 3y ago
  But it's that specific caste that ran Boeing into the ground. Let's call a spade a spade.
commandlinefan 3y ago
> what has to be done Add story points to your JIRA tickets and make sure they're either 1, 2, 3 or 5 points, but if they're more than 5 points, they have to be split into multiple 5-point stories, and points don't really mean anything but they also mean exactly how many days you're going to spend on them. Oh, yeah, and meet your commitments! We'll tell you what your commitments were.
- _ea1k 3y ago
  I'm seeing that same pattern now. How did that weirdo version of scrumbut become so popular?
  - commandlinefan 3y ago
    > that weirdo version It's actually exactly the same as they way they "managed" projects before Scrum (and before XP, which Scrum itself is a bastardized version of): "tell me everything you're going to do, and then tell me how long it's going to take, and I'll provide value by asking you every day if you're done with it yet. See, I'm justifying why I make more money than you do!"
    - _ea1k 3y ago
      I want to believe that you are joking, but I'm afraid you are completely serious and also correct. I'm seeing an increasing drift with both this pattern and "safE" toward exactly what you describe. Don't forget your tps reports.
      - psunavy03 3y ago
        It works better when you realize a lot of corporate senior leadership doesn't actually want to empower their employees. They only want to say they want to empower their employees. And then go back to being the Big Important Manager in the Big Important Office making Big Important Decisions.
        3y ago
dclowd9901 3y ago
It's not like there haven't been tons of books and studying done on the topic. We have an _almost_ ideal production methodology that ensures absolute quality (the Toyota Production System). I take issue with its just-in-time supply chain, but the quality factor is worth emulating, and basically any company who has has guaranteed themselves best quality outcome. So this is willfully producing a less than superior product, which, when it comes to airplanes, is basically criminally negligent since it will result in a crashing plane that kills people. Not sure how execs are so capable of dodging culpability, but I'd say the real issue is our justice system holds no one rich to account.
iancmceachern 3y ago
And these meetings mysteriously have a bunch of sticky notes everywhere, they're purpose is unknown, they're unintelligible, but load bearing for the project. Load bearing sticky notes.
toss1 3y ago
Here's the change that needs to be made (more accurately, reversed): >>Boeing outsources a lot of the production of components for its aircraft because it’s cheaper as part of an overall shift in strategy that dates to CEO Harry Stonecipher who had been CEO of McDonnell Douglas, >>>> "When people say I changed the culture of Boeing, that was the intent, so that it’s run like a business rather than a great engineering firm." IOW, the McDonnel Douglas, now Boeing, CEO deliberately wrecked the engineering firm to make finance primary. In my book, that merits being tarred, feathered, drawn, and quartered. He's putting millions of lives at risk, risking the defense capabilities of the US, and already killed hundreds. All to line the pockets of himself and his cronies. The only question is whether the engineering organization is too far lost to reconstitute.

RONROC 3y ago

unreasonably based. there's almost no other take than this, and if there is one, it must address this.

bertil 3y ago

If you want to be the change you want to see in the world, shout in the ether that this engineer will have a job at your organization. That’s what is keeping so many of them silent: a mortgage, school fees, maybe a H1B.

barelyauser 3y ago
A man with nothing to lose is the most dangerous.
- SteveNuts 3y ago
  By far the most effective leadership I’ve worked for are the ones that already have a very comfortable nest egg or are independently wealthy. They’re the ones that aren’t afraid whatsoever to rock the boat or do what they think is right, and are actually able to drive change.
  - gonzo41 3y ago
    Just imagine how people would work if everyone had some basics assured!
    - rvba 3y ago
      I can imagine that some would be incredibly lazy and some efficient. Question is which group would be bigger.
      - Teever 3y ago
        No the question is which group will have a bigger influence. Lazy people tend to self sort into irrelevance.
    - docmars 3y ago
      Not that I think assuring basics is a bad thing, quite the opposite — but I think we would see a lot more rude co-workers who are willing to take risks with their working relationships. That is, specifically those with basics assured and still early in their career and/or poor relationship skills to begin with. Those issues already surface in any situation, but it's safe to assume that many hold their tongues because they're afraid of losing their income stream.
  - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
    > They’re the ones that aren’t afraid whatsoever to rock the boat or do what they think is right, and are actually able to drive change. I think a great deal of their ability to drive change is because they know the right things to say to the right people. I.e. they have some diplomatic skills. Because while they might be able to afford to lose their job, they certainly won't drive any change if they actually do lose their job.
    - raxxorraxor 3y ago
      I have never seen an engineering project fail because of poor "relationship skills" - definitions pending. Diplomacy helps, but mostly it is about being open about problems and about pushing that info up the chain of responsibility. If you need diplomacy for this point, you already have a severe problem here. Otherwise the head will also fumble. I have been in expensive meetings talking a lot about parking space organization. This always happens if there is nothing interesting related to the business to talk about. Stuff gets off-topic quickly. That said, change and disruption has a positive connotation in the business of today. But it isn't always positive.
      - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
        > Diplomacy helps, but mostly it is about being open about problems and about pushing that info up the chain of responsibility. Then, in my eyes at least, you're talking about either relatively minor things, or things which already fall in the bailiwick of the leader. I'm just a line person with no one under me who could last a max two months without a job but I have no problem communicating problems up the chain. I'm probably naive, but I'd think most other people wouldn't have such problems either. If they do have problems this seems like an organizational issue that even the leaders SteveNuts mentions in the GP wouldn't be able to change.
- huytersd 3y ago
  What a silly designation to assign to one of the cushiest, indoor, high paying jobs in our society.
  - bertil 3y ago
    Compared to the reality of the situation, I agree that it’s garish, but psychologically, people in cushy situations tend to over-dramatize their setbacks. If they _think_ they have nothing to lose, they will act foolishly just the same as if they really do. If a billionaire slams his toe on the leg of a chair, it still hurts, and being sorry for his real pain isn’t denying his otherwise staggering privilege. It’s an excellent example to use to have him empathize with others. If you want to make them act in society’s interest, you can point out that paying taxes or enforcing environmental regulations won’t prevent them from being rich beyond words. An engineer worried about being fired experiences genuine distress: you can empathize with that there and then because it’s real. Once they have a job, ask them to be more considerate when designing processes or buildings so that everyone can work comfortably in the shade or without having to fear how they are going to feed their family by the end of the week.
sparrowInHand 3y ago
Should call them what they are, behavioural hacking to introduce compliant, seddated behaviour, without a longterm grasp of the damage the hacks inflict. Obvious solution? More law-ducttape on the imperfect ape.
throwawaysleep 3y ago
> shout in the ether that this engineer will have a job at your organization. This. Or crowdfund a mega million dollar bounty for evidence of certain types of malfeasance. The market seems to generally punish whistleblowers, and understandably so. I have never worked for a company that wasn't violating some contract, regulation, or law. In my first job we were forging stuff for PCI compliance. The next job stored medical records in a Git repo. So most people have something to lose if there is a whistleblower personality around, as much as we might admire them when they reveal the secrets of others. I wouldn't want to work with one. I am not a manager and even as a low level individual contributor I cut regulatory and security corners to keep bosses happy. You would get far more whistleblowers if it didn't essentially mean wrecking your livelihood, even if you are willing to sacrifice your career.
- specialist 3y ago
  > crowdfund a mega million dollar bounty for evidence of certain types of malfeasance Yes and: Make whistleblowing-for-hire official. IIRC, there's a law practice whose sole activity is suing prescription management practices. Basically forensic accounting meets administrative law. I want more of that. Further: Winner-takes-all seems to be some kind of natural law. And by extension, regulatory capture. Civil society needs countervailing mechanisms that exist outside or separated somehow. I most like ensuring pro-competition and anti-monopoly policies. But monopolies will always exist, eg natural monopolies like utility districts and police, so we also need transparency and accountability hacks like you're suggesting.
  - sparrowInHand 3y ago
    How about, if you can proof your company engages in monopoly practices, you get as a reward, parts of the company to start your own?
- bertil 3y ago
  Far for me to challenge the idea of a fund and bounties. But that’s a lot of money—more than I can personally fork and more than I’d be comfortable advocating to collect. Again, no criticism of your ambition; I’m just a regular guy trying to do his thing. I do believe that good engineers like their work and drive a lot of self-esteem from it being valued—more than living off a stipend because they shot their career in the foot. It’s well-paid enough they rarely think they need to rely on the generosity of strangers, and that’s not a bad mindset to keep. In circumstances like these, people talk about loyalty, notably to their employer; I don’t think loyalty is a bad value, but in that case, you want to advocate for loyalty to the craft and the corps, not the organization profiting from putting people in danger. Engineering values, like the brass ring some get in Canada, are things that you want to support not by saying “we’ll support you if that blows in your face” but “We want people like you to speak up during our meetings.” Giving engineers a guarantee that their craft, their talent and their willingness to ask tough questions is what you value, as a team lead, is something I occasionally can do (not now, though: changing team) and something I’m happy to compensate at fair market value, because it’s objectively a good thing for me too — not because that would put me at odds with my organization, but I’m willing to sacrifice that for some ideal misaligned with profit. We need to work on getting eggheads at Boeing understand that their cost-cutting was a bad idea (SkyScanner letting you filter-out plane time is beautifully aggressive that way), but in the meantime, we need to tell people facing tough decisions that engineering is full of hard trade-offs but that security is not one of them, and not one that should need charity.
firstplacelast 3y ago
This is what I'm hoping for the future, so many will be so poor we won't have mortgages or kids, nothing to lose. But I doubt it.

tiahura 3y ago

An MBA designed MCAS? An MBA designed the door plug installation process? Maybe it’s the Boeing engineers that need some scrutiny?

iancmceachern 3y ago
Read about the Space Shuttle Disasters. There are several good books on them.
mcmcmc 3y ago
Engineering failures don’t just happen in some contextless organizational vacuum
- tiahura 3y ago
  Engineers can't fail, it's always management's fault.
  - swexbe 3y ago
    Unironically, yes? Management is where the buck stops.
  - gilbetron 3y ago
    Engineering needs to be embedded in a system that can handle the fact that engineers fail and still produce reliable and effective outputs. The primary purpose of management is making sure such as system exists and functions. Managers are the engineers of the entire meta-system, basically.
  - lou1306 3y ago
    Engineers can fail, and when they don't QA may, but it's management that chose to believe otherwise
  - g-b-r 3y ago
    > Engineers can't fail, it's always management's fault. or, what can engineers possibly know about engineering: https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=213075 https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=213075

JoshTko 3y ago

Can we just agree to not glorify and denigrate people based on title or role? It's a bit silly.

sgarland 3y ago
If you’re flying at 500 MPH and 30,000 feet, what department do you want the manufacturer to have paid attention to the most: engineering, or sales?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
bitcharmer 3y ago
But it's that specific caste that ran Boeing into the ground. Let's call a spade a spade.

commandlinefan 3y ago

> what has to be done Add story points to your JIRA tickets and make sure they're either 1, 2, 3 or 5 points, but if they're more than 5 points, they have to be split into multiple 5-point stories, and points don't really mean anything but they also mean exactly how many days you're going to spend on them. Oh, yeah, and meet your commitments! We'll tell you what your commitments were.

_ea1k 3y ago
I'm seeing that same pattern now. How did that weirdo version of scrumbut become so popular?
- commandlinefan 3y ago
  > that weirdo version It's actually exactly the same as they way they "managed" projects before Scrum (and before XP, which Scrum itself is a bastardized version of): "tell me everything you're going to do, and then tell me how long it's going to take, and I'll provide value by asking you every day if you're done with it yet. See, I'm justifying why I make more money than you do!"
  - _ea1k 3y ago
    I want to believe that you are joking, but I'm afraid you are completely serious and also correct. I'm seeing an increasing drift with both this pattern and "safE" toward exactly what you describe. Don't forget your tps reports.
    - psunavy03 3y ago
      It works better when you realize a lot of corporate senior leadership doesn't actually want to empower their employees. They only want to say they want to empower their employees. And then go back to being the Big Important Manager in the Big Important Office making Big Important Decisions.
      - 3y ago

dclowd9901 3y ago

It's not like there haven't been tons of books and studying done on the topic. We have an _almost_ ideal production methodology that ensures absolute quality (the Toyota Production System). I take issue with its just-in-time supply chain, but the quality factor is worth emulating, and basically any company who has has guaranteed themselves best quality outcome. So this is willfully producing a less than superior product, which, when it comes to airplanes, is basically criminally negligent since it will result in a crashing plane that kills people. Not sure how execs are so capable of dodging culpability, but I'd say the real issue is our justice system holds no one rich to account.

iancmceachern 3y ago

And these meetings mysteriously have a bunch of sticky notes everywhere, they're purpose is unknown, they're unintelligible, but load bearing for the project. Load bearing sticky notes.

toss1 3y ago

Here's the change that needs to be made (more accurately, reversed): >>Boeing outsources a lot of the production of components for its aircraft because it’s cheaper as part of an overall shift in strategy that dates to CEO Harry Stonecipher who had been CEO of McDonnell Douglas, >>>> "When people say I changed the culture of Boeing, that was the intent, so that it’s run like a business rather than a great engineering firm." IOW, the McDonnel Douglas, now Boeing, CEO deliberately wrecked the engineering firm to make finance primary. In my book, that merits being tarred, feathered, drawn, and quartered. He's putting millions of lives at risk, risking the defense capabilities of the US, and already killed hundreds. All to line the pockets of himself and his cronies. The only question is whether the engineering organization is too far lost to reconstitute.