Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A Short Story for Engineers

userweb.cs.txstate.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–128 of 128 posts

Re: A Short Story for Engineers

#121

Post by krisoft »

To me this is a story about reliability.

On two levels.

On the technical solution level the weight+discard solution is much more reliable. (let's ignore the stupidity that the expensive solution stops the production line. In the real world it would just blow out the wrong ones using compressed air) They have logs from the machine for auditing purposes. They have a very simple to understand knob (the threshold weight) and they can use that to adjust the system to changes in their product. The fan has none of this. If an empty box goes through nobody will know what to change. Maybe the conveyor was a bit stickier that day? Maybe someone set the fan to the lower speed? How to adjust the fan setup when we are making packs of tiny tubes for a hotel?

That's one level of reliability. The other is the organisational reliability. The CEO has the empty box problem. He wants it solved. He can commission an engineering firm who comes up with a solution. It will cost a pretty penny, but if the CEO is worth his salt he can write in performance requirements in the contract. They know they will get a working solution. Alternatively the CEO can go down to the line, he talks with the people there, he tells them about the problem. He offers an incentive for the solution. Let's say $2k. Someone proposes the fan solution, someone proposes to tune the filing machine more, someone proposes to measure the pallet of boxes with the forklift before shipping. How will the CEO know which one to pick? All solutions sounds very reasonable to him. Even after they picked one solution, how does he know it is working as intended? Who does he go to complain when a defect slips through?

Re: A Short Story for Engineers

#122

Post by SZJX »

I feel that being practical in the engineering is one thing but an overemphasis on practicality could also be dangerous in that it could build up technical debt down the road to the point of no (easy) return. Therefore a balance has to be struck.

Though the top comment's interpretation about the difference between the incentives of consultants and regular workers, and how workers should be rewarded more for good work, is very interesting and definitely rings true to me. The importance of proper incentives/reward mechanism is overlooked in many companies, which is a shame.

Re: A Short Story for Engineers

#124

Post by sergeykish »

radicalbyte wrote: post #9

After reading the problem definition, my reaction was: you'd either weigh it and use a solenoid to kick it into a defect box, or you'd use air to knock the empty boxes from the line. I've seen both methods in use on production lines; so I assume that this story is something made up by someone trying to sell some kind of consultancy service?

Pusher https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUVdHAUC7_g

Pneumatic https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7H9QyHUojFE

Somehow they've installed sensor but don't know about these. Add "$8 million", "0" cases yet guy "was tired of walking", "three weeks of production use" and only CEO bothered to check.

Re: A Short Story for Engineers

#125

Post by xtiansimon »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #69
xtiansimon wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“value-based pricing” As I understand it, the value is based on the customer’s perception of value. And I believe this is contrasted with hourly-based pricing. If I try to come up with an example, I might say the postal service has a value price. Mail a letter anywhere in the (continental) US, 0.55 You don’t pay 1.55 if it gets there sooner. Even if you overnight the letter, there is a flat fee. The extra cost for mo…

Value-based pricing is used to imply that the price of the service should be proportional to the value the customer receives from it, not the cost it took for the consultant to implement the solution. Of course, with huge corporations, teeny improvements can be worth millions in value. So consultants working with these large corporations will usually prefer a "value-based pricing" model because if they can convince a…

I take your point, "because...they can convince a customer they can reap $100 million in additional savings or revenue", this 'potential' revenue extends to the 'value' of the service, and the consulting agency should be allowed to take a proportionally larger share of this potential revenue as fee regardless if they are successful.

I'm coming at this from small businesses, who don't usually have resources (MBAs?) to forecast revenue in the way you're suggesting.

Again, my thought of value-based has a customer with a fixed opinion of the 'value'. You can't really get them to spend more money, because they don't perceive more benefit proportional to increasing cost.

I'm asking, is my application of value-based consistent with the term as you use it? And if yes, on what _other concepts_ does the theory turn to distinguish your concept of fees proportional to the customer's potential revenue?

What flips the interpretation of 'value-pricing' from a 'commodity' service, to your 'gambling' argument? If it's the uncertainty burden, then wow, that is some forecasting and salesmanship!

Re: A Short Story for Engineers

#126

Post by husamia »

the line worker that came up with the idea probably didn't even know that engineering was spread thin and external firm was hired to find solution. Even if he did, his idea would have been thrown out.

Re: A Short Story for Engineers

#127

Post by whack »

tuatoru wrote: post #101
asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it actually matters that it's an urban legend. If it were a true story the value of its message would be less disputable. But if it's an urban legend that means that the message -- that line workers have valuable and inexpensive insights to offer -- is unsubstantiated and may not be true in the main. (I qualify this with "in the main" because of course there must have been some occasion when a line worker had…

But sometimes... My anecdote: a close friend's brother was working as a laborer on a pipeline dig. One day work halted for a couple of hours, during which the construction supervisor and engineer were huddled over some plans. My friend's brother saunters past, looks over, and says "there's your problem," placing a finger on the plan. Then he walks on. He had seen a triangle with angles not adding up to 180 degrees. H…

> He had seen a triangle with angles not adding up to 180 degrees

Genuinely curious. How does one even draw a triangle whose angles don't add up to 180 degrees?

Re: A Short Story for Engineers

#128

Post by roryokane »

whack wrote: post #127
tuatoru wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But sometimes... My anecdote: a close friend's brother was working as a laborer on a pipeline dig. One day work halted for a couple of hours, during which the construction supervisor and engineer were huddled over some plans. My friend's brother saunters past, looks over, and says "there's your problem," placing a finger on the plan. Then he walks on. He had seen a triangle with angles not adding up to 180 degrees. H…

> He had seen a triangle with angles not adding up to 180 degrees Genuinely curious. How does one even draw a triangle whose angles don't add up to 180 degrees?

My guess is that the triangle was drawn correctly, but its interior angles had labels like “55°”, and those labels didn't add up to 180°. So the triangle could be constructed differently from intended, depending on which two of the angles the constructors used for reference.
Post reply on HN