Too_Many_Tools wrote:
Having BTDT (for 30+ yrs) w/ several engineering/manufacturing firms
from very large to start-ups which grew until were bought by very
large, I have to agree w/ Rick here...while there are MBAs and
accountants, and they have very important functions, in none of these
places did they dictate to Engineering nor were "engineers are under
the thumb of accountants." As Rick says, where the cost-accounting
enters the design phase is in trying to make a price-point which is a
function of market niche, competition, timing, comparative product
advantage vis a vis competitors', etc., etc., etc., ... After that,
it then becomes an engineering problem of how to design, fabricate
and distribute (and support) the product. As one moves from more
complex, costly products to less expensive, the compromises to
accomplish the goal become more severe. If your product is a
plastic toy to try to sell millions, the margin per item has to be
miniscule. If, otoh, you're building a high-end anything, that is a
different set of constraints. Either way, unless the product can be
designed and manufactured and ultimately, sold for a profit, there
won't be any more company so the cost point is as important as
anything else.

While I respect your opinion, it sounds like you are reading straight
from a textbook.

After decades in manufacturing, I can tell you that I have never seen
it work that way.

Reality is much different than the academic BS model....see Dilbert
for a real life reference.

Nothing like real life.

Ever wonder why Dilbert and the television show
"The Office" are so popular...because they are so true.

Nope, because they exaggerate what really happens.

That is what caricatures have always been about.

What you neatly gross over is what happens when
engineering says it can't make a product based on
the imaginary price point...who then decides?

Its never that black and white either.

I will give you a hint....it ain't engineering.

It aint the bean counters either if it isnt possible, stupid.

And did I mention that the CEO's bonus is tied to this product?

No it isnt.

In the end, a company will produce the cheapest junk that it can sell...

Have fun explaining ipods and countless other products.

The real world is nothing like as black and white as you claim.

and it will work very hard to insure that the consumer
needs to buy another new one from them...

Having it not last long is a hopeless way of doing that.

and have to get any and all support from them.

Plenty avoid products like that.

It is all about separating the consumer from as
much of their money as painlessly as possible.

Its never that black and white either.

And that is called a conspiracy.

Wrong again, its you silly little 'planned obsolescence'
thats a conspiracy, if it was actually possible.


dpb wrote:
Too_Many_Tools wrote:

The engineers are TOLD by the MBA accountants where to cut costs.

You've never worked for a company that manufactures stuff have you?

Marketing (NOT accounting) might provide a price-point that their
research indicates a product needs to be at to be competitive and
the design/engineering/manufacuring departments might be given a
mandate to meet that price point by top level management, but
there are no "accountants" telling anyone where to cut costs.

I believe it is you who needs to work in the real world and ignore
the fairy tales of academic circles.

In a real company, engineers are under the thumb of accountants.
They are to make whatever cuts need to be made to make the desired
profit margin. Products are manufactured with intentional end lifes
and without any possiblity of repair...all required by MBAs who have
dictated what the product life and quality will be.
...

Having BTDT (for 30+ yrs) w/ several engineering/manufacturing firms
from very large to start-ups which grew until were bought by very
large, I have to agree w/ Rick here...while there are MBAs and
accountants, and they have very important functions, in none of these
places did they dictate to Engineering nor were "engineers are under
the thumb of accountants." As Rick says, where the cost-accounting
enters the design phase is in trying to make a price-point which is a
function of market niche, competition, timing, comparative product
advantage vis a vis competitors', etc., etc., etc., ... After that,
it then becomes an engineering problem of how to design, fabricate
and distribute (and support) the product. As one moves from more
complex, costly products to less expensive, the compromises to
accomplish the goal become more severe. If your product is a
plastic toy to try to sell millions, the margin per item has to be
miniscule. If, otoh, you're building a high-end anything, that is a
different set of constraints. Either way, unless the product can be
designed and manufactured and ultimately, sold for a profit, there
won't be any more company so the cost point is as important as
anything else.

The point is, the manner in which it is made manifest is, in most
organizations, not a draconion "order from above" as you would imply
with an express goal to extract the pound of flesh a la a historical
vision of a Carnegie or a Vanderbilt, but an overall coordinated
approach to how to make the best corporate decisions in a competitive
economy. All information in this environment is imprecise and all
individuals making these decisions are not infallible so there are
always decisions made that aren't, in retrospect, optimal, but that
doesn't mean these decisions were made a priori to fulfill some grand
over-arching scheme. On the far extreme one _might_ be able to find
a company that tried to operate as you suggest, but I would submit it
would be an aberration in general and highly likely to not succeed in
the long run.