It’s our duty to be thorough to ensure a reliable outcome
Amanda McGowan, Associate Editor, PD&D
 "If we slow down and double check that diode or transistor or whatever product being developed, we might just see the benefits in the ending product – the benefits of being thorough." -Amanda McGowan |
I spent the majority of the past two days performing a civic responsibility I think a lot of people dread: jury duty. Those of you who have been summoned for jury duty probably know what I am talking about when I say: it has been a long two days.
ADVERTISEMENT
The second day, I actually served on a jury for a day-long trial. Now, when they told me it would be a day-long trial, I thought that meant business day-long, as in somewhere between 8:00 or 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. I was wrong. I was a juror from approximately 8:45 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Like I said, it was a long day.
However, what really struck me about this was the way in which time is utilized in the judicial system. There were multiple times throughout the trial in which the court took a break so attorneys could discuss with the judge, or so the judge could fully prepare the jury instructions and legal explanations before the jury deliberated. These breaks were often longer than expected. The judge says it will take 30 minutes – you can pretty much count on it being an hour before the jury is escorted back into court.
At the time, I was annoyed. However, in retrospect, I realize the judicial system works on this “judicial time” for the sake of thoroughness. While the thoroughness can be irritating and time-consuming, it is crucial to take the extra precautions to ensure justice.
The judge and the attorneys need the time to discuss and agree thoroughly on certain stipulations about the case to ensure a fair trial. The attorneys need to provide foundation for every question they ask of witnesses, even if the answers are obvious. Both sides must present the jury a step-by-step analysis of the evidence of the case. All of this is to ensure a thorough and fair understanding of the case.
As I sat experiencing the thoroughness of the judicial system, it got me thinking about the importance of being thorough among other professions. In the case of design engineers, for example, there are certain precautions the engineer must take to ensure they have created a properly working product.
Just as it is the judge’s job to ensure he thoroughly explains every clause of the law to the jury, the engineer must ensure every component of the part is doing its job and working properly. In both cases, this thoroughness is to ensure the best possible product results. In the case of the judge, it is a fair and just verdict. In the case of a design engineer, it is a properly functional product.
I recently spoke with representatives of the Automotive Electronics Council, an organization that has developed standardized qualification specifications for automotive electronic components. The AEC have set in place a series of tests and guidelines to qualify electronic parts – integrated circuits, discrete semiconductors and passive components such as capacitors, resistors and inductors.
The AEC specs are meant to improve reliability among electronic components, and ultimately reduce field failures once a part is actually implemented into a vehicle. Yet, being AEC qualified is not required for design engineers nor is it by all vehicle manufacturers, even though tests show that when parts meet the AEC specs, defectivity and field failures do decrease.
Why, then, are there not more qualified electronic components? According to the AEC, it is attributed largely to time to market. Manufacturers do not want to take the time to perform all these tests to qualify a part because a) the test itself takes time and money, and b) if a part fails a test, they have to start over again, taking more time and more money. In the industry of electronics, time to market is essential. The first to put the newest technology out is going to profit the most.
Now, most products are subject to some sort of specification requirements, but not all the qualification specs are standardized throughout an entire industry. It seems, then, that by not having standardized and required qualifications, there is more room for product developers to bypass thoroughly testing a product’s components, allowing hastiness to achieve profit at the potential expense of quality and reliability.
While it seemed like eternity for the judicial system to complete all of its checks and precautions to ensure a reliable, just verdict, I believe it achieved that. Our verdict, in the end, was the fair and correct decision, based on a thorough understanding of the evidence presented in the case. And because every court in the United States is held to the same standards, the system, to the best of its ability, ensures a consistently reliable outcome.
Standardized qualification specs, however, are not present across product designers and manufacturers. Not every product developer is held to the same standard, and as a result, components fail in the field.
If we would implement the same, uniform standards to product development, I think we would be surprised at the quality of products that result. Further, if everyone is held to the same standard, then everyone is subject to the same time specifications and time impediments. Only now, a thorough examination of the product has been done, ensuring increased reliability across the field.
If we slow down and double check that diode or transistor or whatever product being developed, we might just see the benefits in the ending product – the benefits of being thorough. The judicial system has been practicing this thoroughness for 200 plus years, and while it might drive a juror crazy, it works.
What's your take? Send comments to amanda.mcgowan@advantagemedia.com
I have just finished reworking yet another design that was rushed due to schedule mismanagement ultimately resulting in delayed product shipment. In fact, the delay was worse than if the proper attention had been given to the design from the begining. This condition has become increasingly common (much to my chagrin) and I've been at this since 1975. Your article spured me to recall some advice passed on to me from my father i.e "a job worth doing is worth doing right". What seems like common sense is really all too uncommon. Maybe this condition will lessen when standard management training adopts what our fathers touted "never enough time to do it right but always enough time to do it over". I am of the opinion that "first time right" is not only possible but the best way to minimize risk to schedule and keep total costs in check. I'm not sure if I appreciated your article more for our mutual condition or the glimpse of hope that all is not lost with the newer engineers.
-Rob |
Your article was timely in this “panic to market” environment, and your segway from your jury duty brings back memories of my past jury duty. Just as a good jurist takes the time to understand all the facts in evidence before rendering their decision, I think a good designer will take the time to ensure that his/her product is ready for the consumer. I suspect that all experienced development engineers have stories of what can happen when the schedule is met but the product is not really ready for prime time. -Doug, MN |
One of the first things to be realized is that PD requirements, standards and regulation is dictated by the customer and their industries not the company performing the PD. The requirements from industry to industry can vary drastically. Compare medical implants to space shuttle parts to a MP3 player to a box end wrench, different products, different industries, different needs. The customer must dictate requirements, not the process itself. To saddle the PD process with mandated multi-layered design and testing requirements would increase cost, increase time to market and cripple product development, as we know it. It goes without saying that not every part, every component, every sub-assembly is thoroughly tested individually prior to product introduction. In your words, you suggest that ‘not holding every product engineer to the same standards’ creates failures. You also suggest ‘the same uniform standards’, the ‘same standards’, the ‘same time specifications’, the ‘same impediments’, the same coffee, and the same doughnuts. That is not how you improve the process that is how you control a bunch of youngsters who do not have the tools to do it any other way. Your thoughts about PD and how to control it make no room for experience and intuition or the knowledge gained from a thousand product tests or designing and introducing dozens of product lines. Eventually, there are often bits and pieces you can take for granted and assumptions one can easily make. While I do not suggest that proper product verification and validation do not take place, regulation of the process would not help it. While there are lots of PD engineers out there far better than I am, there are also a lot of engineers out there who might be as good as I am one day. It is experience that makes you good and experience comes from learning every day, learning from classes, seminars and journals. Learning from those more experienced than you and learning from every task you complete. And yes, you do learn from mistakes. You can learn from anyone and it is not about age, it is about experience. It’s about where they have been as compared to where you are and where you want to go. Learn something everyday and never stop learning. Hopefully one day, you will be in a position to return the favor to new engineer or a new associate editor. It all comes around full circle. -Wayne, OK |