3 ms·

Are you saying a piece of clothing designed to be mass-produced is not highly engineered and doesn't involve many contributors?

infecto 2y ago
By the usual definitions of highly engineered, nope, it's not. In today's term it is a low-complexity commodity/consumer good. Sure, multiple hands may touch it during the manufacturing process but its low complexity even with machines involved. Each step can be measured and the combined product does not have multiple workflows going into it. A highly engineered good would a jet engine, an MRI machine or similar. Multiple teams, steps that may be hard to measure and perhaps quality output that may not be fully measured until the end product is put together. Not sure why you would think otherwise. It is not a disagreement with the idea but its definitely not a good apples to apples comparison. I guess it fits well with certain narratives people love.
- cratermoon 2y ago
  I worked at a well-known multi-national sportswear manufacturer, programming on their product lifecycle management interfacing with logistics, manufacturing, design, marketing, the whole works. Please believe me when I say these items are highly engineered, from start to finish. To address your specific assertion, "the combined product does not have multiple workflows going into it", not a single piece of clothing comes off the assembly line without having multiple teams globally coordinating every step along the way.
  - infecto 2y ago
    I think we might be talking past each other due to different definitions of "highly engineered." I’ve got some touch in this space too, family in textile manufacturing, and I’ve seen firsthand what goes into setting up and running these operations. Yes, there are many teams involved: design, sourcing, logistics, etc., and coordination is non-trivial. But when I say "not highly engineered," I’m speaking in relative terms-compared to something like a jet engine, semiconductor fab, or an MRI machine, where you have interlocking systems, deep R&D, and layers of complex subsystems that are difficult to validate in isolation. Textiles are complex in a logistical and operational sense, but not in the same way. With some capital, a motivated team can spin up a factory making garments. That’s just not possible with truly high engineering products. So I don’t disagree that a lot of work goes into it, just that the comparison feels off. We’re evaluating "complexity" on different planes. Software is not an semiconductor fab but its also not a textile plant.

infecto 2y ago

By the usual definitions of highly engineered, nope, it's not. In today's term it is a low-complexity commodity/consumer good. Sure, multiple hands may touch it during the manufacturing process but its low complexity even with machines involved. Each step can be measured and the combined product does not have multiple workflows going into it. A highly engineered good would a jet engine, an MRI machine or similar. Multiple teams, steps that may be hard to measure and perhaps quality output that may not be fully measured until the end product is put together. Not sure why you would think otherwise. It is not a disagreement with the idea but its definitely not a good apples to apples comparison. I guess it fits well with certain narratives people love.

cratermoon 2y ago
I worked at a well-known multi-national sportswear manufacturer, programming on their product lifecycle management interfacing with logistics, manufacturing, design, marketing, the whole works. Please believe me when I say these items are highly engineered, from start to finish. To address your specific assertion, "the combined product does not have multiple workflows going into it", not a single piece of clothing comes off the assembly line without having multiple teams globally coordinating every step along the way.
- infecto 2y ago
  I think we might be talking past each other due to different definitions of "highly engineered." I’ve got some touch in this space too, family in textile manufacturing, and I’ve seen firsthand what goes into setting up and running these operations. Yes, there are many teams involved: design, sourcing, logistics, etc., and coordination is non-trivial. But when I say "not highly engineered," I’m speaking in relative terms-compared to something like a jet engine, semiconductor fab, or an MRI machine, where you have interlocking systems, deep R&D, and layers of complex subsystems that are difficult to validate in isolation. Textiles are complex in a logistical and operational sense, but not in the same way. With some capital, a motivated team can spin up a factory making garments. That’s just not possible with truly high engineering products. So I don’t disagree that a lot of work goes into it, just that the comparison feels off. We’re evaluating "complexity" on different planes. Software is not an semiconductor fab but its also not a textile plant.