clare at snyder.on.ca wrote
Rod Speed wrote
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.

Not stupid. It IS the bean counters - and for the
pricepoint DICTATED it is impossible to make a
QUALITY product with any kind of consistency.

Utterly mangled all over again. Its actually the engineers that
choose to make things in a way that minimises the cost of
manufacturer, and maximises the reliability, even if that does
produce a product that is difficult or impractical to repair if it fails.

Most obviously with plugpacks which cant be opened without
physically breaking them, and molded power cords etc.

So the customer becomes the QC department.

No they dont. And thats got nothing to do with his stupid claim
about who gets to decide how things are constructed anyway.

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.

Nobody said inexpensive.

Some did just that.

Cheap ain't the same. It is CHEAP OVERPRICED JUNK.

Easy to claim. Much harder to substantiate the claim that its junk.

ipods certainly arent either cheap or junk.

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.

No, it is an EXCELLENT way, because you add more "Gee Whizz"
and "gotta have it" in the next iteration (which comes out JUST
BEFORE the majority of the last version come off warranty).

And most consumers will avoid brands that didnt last long previously.

Its actually an excellent way of getting them
to try the competitor's product instead.

And that claim about JUST BEFORE isnt even possible either.

This way, a large percentage of owners are salivating over the new product,

Few do, only a small percentage at most.

and either throw the cheap one in a corner to buy the new one, or, more often,
just figure when the old one fails it's a good excuse to buy the new one.

But wont be buying the same brand again if it just managed to last for the warranty.

Lots of us want to keep using the simple old unit - and cannot because it fails.

Bugger all modern electronic devices fail anymore.

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.