Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Sat 11/24/2007 View Fri 11/23/2007 View Thu 11/22/2007 View Wed 11/21/2007 View Tue 11/20/2007 View Mon 11/19/2007 View Sun 11/18/2007
1
2007-11-24 Fifth Column
Defense Focus: Spy sat lessons -- Part 3
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by 3dc 2007-11-24 04:26|| || Front Page|| [1 views ]  Top

#1 Management where I work is in love with "process." (sick six-sigma, ISOwhatever, Configuration Management run by Himmler's acolytes, etc., etc.) Added cost is huge and the "benefit" is smart engineers bogged down in endless timewasting crap. Recently a viewgraph showed up with this inspiring message:

"Win the war on talent!"

They're definitely winning.
Posted by PBMcL 2007-11-24 11:46||   2007-11-24 11:46|| Front Page Top

#2 Its all Edward Demings fault.
Posted by Jack is Back!">Jack is Back!  2007-11-24 12:19||   2007-11-24 12:19|| Front Page Top

#3 The out-sourcing, demands of venture caps and current management theory have been a Fifth Column to the United States!

While, perhaps, not an actively antagonistic element working directly against America's security in the Global War on Terrorism: The self-protecting and entrenched Good Old Boy network of American CEOs have begun to represent opposition to our national economic health.

Considering that real-world experience no longer is an accepted yardstick and that a Harvard MBA has become the new gold standard for a boardroom chair, the endemic infection of our corporate world with elitist mentalities should be no surprise. Couple that with the lack of allegience shown by companies—whose original survival often depended upon American free market economics—that now migrate offshore if it boosts their bottom line by 0.0001% and the CEO network becomes a negative player in this industrial drama.

I have long railed about how America must retain a fundamental quorum of essential manufacturing capabilities. In the modern network-centric battlefield, simple DRAM data storage chips have become critical assets. Even such banal enterprises like textiles are needed to make military uniforms. In the name of increasing profits for the select cadres of lobbyist-equipped political campaign contributors, we have seen a huge number of these vital industries gutted and sent overseas.

The migration of important production expertise to a significant enemy like communist China—not to mention tremendous wealth in the form of our staggering trade imabalance—is a sterling example of the political appeasement enjoyed by faithless American multinationals. They are effectively being rewarded for trashing our economy.

One major problem almost never directly addressed is a process that has now been observed in the aerospace field for at least 35 years -- the loss of experienced veterans on a huge scale before they could pass on most of their experience and expertise to qualified successors.

It bears repeating what I have previously posted in other threads about CEO overcompensation as this article drives home the exact point I had made about how poor documentation devastatingly compounds the loss of skills brought on due to sleight-of-hand bookkeeping practices practiced by top executives—too often the aforementioned Harvard MBAs—who seek cosmetic turnarounds of corporations solely for the sake of prematurely awarded stock options and bonuses that have nothing to do with long term profitability or true corporate survival.
It remains a simple fact that an overwhelming number of companies have poor quality documentation. Too often it results from an attitude of; "Get the job done and worry about documentation later." This sort of shortsighted management is incredibly toxic to real productivity as it inhibits expedient streamlining of manufacturing processes. This in turn inhibits ROI (Return On Investment) based upon legitimate increases in productivity and decreased cost of manufacturing. It remains a simple fact that—in nearly every case—the cost of labor is a tiny fraction of overall expenses and even a significant reduction in workforce generates little to no actual increase in true profitability.

Lack of adequate documentation automatically engenders the growth of "tribal lore" amongst workers with respect to methodology and solutions. This knowledge usually concentrates in senior employees and is forever lost in the usual initial round of cost-cutting layoffs. While a CEO may appear to have reduced expenses—excepting his own, of course—in reality this attempt to weather economic downturns leaves companies completely crippled once the marketplace recovers. Bereft of seasoned talent, labor costs and operating losses soar due to poor outgoing quality, expensive rework to correct the mistakes of new-hires and NRE (Non-Recurring Engineering) costs related to recapturing the manufacturing knowledge lost by reductions in the experienced workforce.

As the article itself concludes:

The shrinkage of the U.S. aerospace workforce to one-seventh of what it was a quarter-century ago when President Ronald Reagan took office has been the main general factor in this process. But it has been intensified and made far worse by the bias toward having academic qualifications for senior management in the industrial workplace and by the accompanying bias against having older managers in their 40s and 50s, or even in their 60s.
Posted by Zenster">Zenster  2007-11-24 13:08||   2007-11-24 13:08|| Front Page Top

#4 " But it has been intensified and made far worse by the bias toward having academic qualifications for senior management in the industrial workplace and by the accompanying bias against having older managers in their 40s and 50s, or even in their 60s."

Yeah, that's what I call the Google effect. Google won't hire anyone much over 30 because they think if you are that old then you are stupid or can't grasp new technologies. Tell that to the 50 year olds that are designing the microprocessors that their stuff runs on.

Also I sincerely believe that anyone under 30 in this country that has come through the public school system has no concept of problem solving. If they haven't been specifically taught something, they have no clue how to find the information on their own ... they are lost. That goes double when under pressure. We bring them up nowadays in sports where we don't keep score because we don't want them to be traumatized by losing and thrust them into a world where competition is everything and wonder why they are failing.
Posted by crosspatch 2007-11-24 13:34||   2007-11-24 13:34|| Front Page Top

#5 Zenster from my point of view its faily simple:

I am a well experienced intelligence worker who is a lot closer to retirement than 40, who also has a experience in satellite and aerospace systems, in addition to my experience designing and supporting SF operations and planning systems, C3I systems, and military service in the Army.

Yet I and a lot of others like me have been discarded by managers who want younger programmers and engineers who cost less, or younger MBA types who thing that someone over 40 cannot do as well as someone right out of college with the newer things like C# or Java.

So we end up being let go when there is a funding slump, and have a hard time getting back in. Same goes with the good technical managers -instead of givne new projects and programs, they wre moved outof the way for somone cheaper.

So good luck getting those engineers from India to fill security positions, and good luck getting these green engineers and PM's to produce systems that we did.

And if you want the younger guys, they will continue to make mistakes because they haven;t seen thigns before that we have, and cannot design for them like we do. They'll have to do it without having the apprentice time in the 80's from those steel-grey crew-cut guys who invented all this in the 50's and 60's.

Thats why still using 20+ year old tech (Stealth was a 70's 80's product) and some satellites that are 10+ years old and newer ones have failed, and why little of the stuff since 2000 has delivered like the stuff we did the 80's thru early 90's. We did it with the overlap from those great seat-of-the-pants engineers. The ones now dont have that overlap because of the MBA and cultural belief that younger is better. Bull.

So we've left aerospace. You can only shit on us for so long before we cannot be lured back.


Posted by OldSpook 2007-11-24 13:44||   2007-11-24 13:44|| Front Page Top

#6 Mr. Lotp's career was in defense aerospace for a couple decades (both in and out of uniform) and I worked development and then engineering management on several space-based defense projects.

The article misses a key factor -- the move in the 90s under Clinton to use low bid as the primary contracting criterion and to push off the shelf components whenever any sort of half case could be made for doing so (usually on cost ).

Add in the wooing of China under Clinton and you can see where that's going ....

FIA had the added problem of massive fingers in the pie on the part of Congressional staff. Knowing zilch about both intel/military issues and technology, they insisted on pushing multiple edges at once while promising everything to everyone. NRO went along in part as an attempt to hold onto their mission as the Clinton machine hollowed out and reorg'd intel collection up one side and down the other.

I'd be very interested to know just where those defective components were manufactured.
Posted by lotp 2007-11-24 13:47||   2007-11-24 13:47|| Front Page Top

#7 The out-sourcing, demands of venture caps and current management theory have been a Fifth Column to the United States!

Agree. I think the whole concept of contracting is going to have very negative repercussions for the long run. I feel sorry for the educated just entering the workplace today. Though they are better paid, they are not much better off than migrant farm workers - moving from place to place providing services without any stake in the company or the final product. Punch the clock, fill your 401K and keep your head low so you don't get the first pink slip.

Don't know what will fix this. The mega corps that get the contracts have no reason not to continue to win the contract with the biggest promises and the lowest bid. It's not like the ol' days when your company needed to worry about quality work and reputation. Now, you get the contract, hire the cheapest workers, do the least amount possible to complete the contract, fire them all so you don't have to pay seniority and then start the process all over again.

This is what happens when you just hand over your tax dollars to your government to distribute to whomever and whatever it pleases. No one knows or cares how it is distributed and then you, the taxpayer end up begging the same people that you gave it to for a little bit of it back for healthcare and for a contracting job that you can get paid 1/2 of what it is worth.
Posted by Woozle Grereck5422 2007-11-24 13:53||   2007-11-24 13:53|| Front Page Top

#8 "I'd be very interested to know just where those defective components were manufactured."

That thought crossed my mind as well.
Posted by crosspatch 2007-11-24 13:55||   2007-11-24 13:55|| Front Page Top

#9 Look no further than some porker congressmen's districts. Seriously. Look at the spending and what companies in which distrcits got the slice of the pie for that. I dont want to say much more because I am unsure where the line is, but someone that wants to dig this out will find all kinds of roaches under the rocks, getting rich while operations in the IC and DoD go wanting.
Posted by OldSpook 2007-11-24 15:01||   2007-11-24 15:01|| Front Page Top

#10 Thats why still using 20+ year old tech (Stealth was a 70's 80's product) and some satellites that are 10+ years old and newer ones have failed, and why little of the stuff since 2000 has delivered like the stuff we did the 80's thru early 90's. We did it with the overlap from those great seat-of-the-pants engineers. The ones now dont have that overlap because of the MBA and cultural belief that younger is better. Bull

'Spook, I can think of no better example than the Sidewinder missile. I seem to recall it was brought in ahead of deadline and under budget and still remains in service to this very day. This was your classic rugged KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) style of engineering. I doubt we will ever see the likes of it again until machine intelligence begins generating designs for us.
Posted by Zenster">Zenster  2007-11-24 15:59||   2007-11-24 15:59|| Front Page Top

23:53 3dc
23:15 trailing wife
23:14 trailing wife
23:08 Pappy
22:11 phil_b
22:09 trailing wife
22:07 twobyfour
22:07 ryuge
22:03 twobyfour
22:02 phil_b
21:59 trailing wife
21:36 Zenster
21:28 3dc
21:17 trailing wife
20:48 trailing wife
20:40 Old Patriot
20:31 Grumenk Philalzabod0723
20:28 Grumenk Philalzabod0723
19:26 Steve
19:06 ed
19:05 Zhang Fei
18:50 NoMoreBS
18:31 danking70
18:21 Old Patriot









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com