At Issue

(Lessons From A Sales Guy)

Like it or not, computer modeling is on the rise in the engineering industry.

by Masha V. Petrova, founder/CEO, MVP Modeling Solutions

Tools like CAD (Computer Aided Engineering), FE (Finite Element) and CFD (Computational Fluid Dynamics) save inordinate amounts of time and money for companies that use these tools in their Research and Development. Some theories simply can not be tested in a lab and can only be modeled. So if research can be done cheaper, faster, with more innovative products as a result of computer simulations, why are so many researchers not getting the funding from management needed to expand or simply keep in place computer modeling projects?

Having worked in both engineering R&D and sales, I believe I figured out what the problem might be. It has to do with the approach that engineers take when trying to implement a new computer model in their workflow. Being detail oriented, engineers tend to focus on things like getting a delta mue as close to 0.0001 percent as possible, or re-writing chunks of code to better represent a certain set of equations, or focusing on which turbulence model is more accurate. All these things do need attention, but not when it comes to getting more funding or resources for the modeling project.

When I went to work in software sales several years ago, just like many engineers I was under the impression that sales guys were, shall we say, somewhat of a lower life form, compared to us – smart and hard working engineers. I was wrong. Sales guys taught me to think about engineering research in a very different way – the kind of way that brings in money, closes deals, and allows research programs to expand.

If you are thinking about becoming more involved in engineering computer modeling, or are trying to figure out how to get funding to buy a needed software tool - read the 5 steps below and start applying them to your engineering problems. Do this, and the benefits of computer modeling will become blatantly obvious to you, your group, and you management.

Step 1: Ask– What is the Big Picture?

One thing that sales guys are really good at doing, is figuring out what is the Big Picture underneath all of the equations, tolerances and input variables. They are able to make the sale to management because they relate the most technical engineering software or hardware to the Big Picture. Here are some questions that you need to ask yourself when figuring out what is that Big Picture:

• “What are my company’s products?”
• “How does my company get revenue?”
• “Is my company presenting itself as innovative, environmentally friendly, profitable, other?”

This step will get you thinking on a broader scope. It will get you to understand why this project is important to the overall goals of you company.

Step 2: Ask -How do I fit into the Big Picture?

Now you have to relate the goals of your company to you, your team and your project.

Ask yourself:

• “How do I/my team contribute to company products / services?”
• “How does what I do help company image (my work is innovative, helps the environment, creates new products that bring in revenue,etc)?”
• “How does my work help the bottom line (saves money or brings in more revenue)?”       

Step 3: Define Project in Terms of Computer Simulation

Now it’s time to get a bit more technical. A sales guy would not get too involved in this step, but you being an engineer, need to specify the following:

• What is the goal of your computer simulation? (e.g learn how emissions vary with input temperature, understand how the thickness of microchip coating depends on the inlet flow-rate, etc). Possibilities are endless. Just make sure that the goal of your simulation fits directly with Steps 1 and 2 above.
• Identify variables that you can control or cannot control but need to take into consideration (temperatures, pressures, heat releases, turbulence…) There are many options, make sure that you really examine the problem you are trying to model from ever angle and identify all possible variables. I can not emphasize enough how important this step is and yet about 90% of engineers choose to skip it before running a computer experiment!
• Pin-point assumptions that can safely be made in order to achieve your simulation goal.
• Pick the best software available.

 Step 4: Create Specific Modeling Plan / Run Computer Experiments/ Analyze Data

Finally, here is a step that a sales guy would not touch with a 10-foot pole. As engineers we thrive on this step, so it is relatively self-explanatory to any engineer. The only thing I would point out here is that setting up an experiment plan, running experiments, and analyzing results are interconnected. If after looking at modeling results you need to go back and adjust you modeling plan and then re-run the experiments, that is a very natural process.

You should NOT however have to go back to Step 1, 2 or 3 and wonder “What are my assumptions anyway?” or “I think I need a different software tool” or “Not sure how this is going to be useful to my company.” Most engineers do it anyway and that is why computer modeling is not expanding as fast as it should in the engineering industry.

Step 5: Presenting Modeling Results to Management

Sales guys would be all over this step. In fact, if you are trying to get funding from your management to, for example, renew an expensive license for a software, here is my suggestion. Call up the software vendor that you purchased the tool from and let them know that you need to present the modeling results to management. Tell them that getting funding to renew the software license depends on this presentation. Then politely request if the sales guy would review your presentation and optimize it in a way that would get you funding from management (make sure to remove any proprietary information).

Most good sales people would be thrilled to help you with that. They would do it by tying all of your modeling results to the Big Picture. And if you have done some work on my Steps 1-3, you can do the same thing. Trust me, management would be much happier understanding how your results are helping accomplish company goals instead of how you re-wrote the deta mue function in C++.

Describing how modeling results fit into the Big Picture will get you project funding, and who knows, maybe even a raise.

Masha V. Petrova holds a Ph.D. in aerospace engineering is a founder and CEO of MVP Modeling Solutions. Her weekly blog on a variety of engineering topics, can be found on http://mvpmodelingsolutions.com/mvpblog/

For more information visit MVP Modeling Solutions

Digital coupons aren’t only saving consumers money; they’re saving hackers a bundle.

by Meaghan Ziemba, Associate Editor, PD&D

I’m an individual who loses everything. I don’t have very much expensive jewelry because I wouldn’t be able to find it in two weeks; I keep my phone on loud so I can find it every time I misplace it, and I’m on my third Social Security card. Loose change and bills always find their way into car-seat and couch cracks – becoming someone else’s treasure – and coupons and discount cards I receive in the mail always seem to disappear until the expiration date passes.

Attempts are being made through technology to help disorganized people like myself, become more organized. Debit cards eliminate the use of loose change and bills, calendar apps are added to phones – beeping reminders of appointments, deadlines and sibling birthdays; online banking and payment of bills provide an organized record for clients at the tips of their fingers, and now digital coupons are available for consumers, making great deals easily accessible before they expire.

While the idea of going digital is more convenient and organized, I’m still a skeptic of the security involved. We all have heard or were victims of identity and credit card theft. Recently I received a phone call from my bank on purchases that showed up on my bank statement. One item was a type of computer memory I would have never known existed if the purchase was never brought to my attention. The other was more computer software with such a foreign name I needed to call the company and ask for its function.

Each purchase was made online with my credit card number. That’s all it took. My name and 16 numbers bought someone in Cleveland brand new computer products from a Madison, WI, Associate Editor’s account. Never mind the 3-digit security number that is intended to separate everyone’s card from each other. And it’s happening more often.

Grocery stores, ATM’s and online accounts are getting hacked and random numbers are picked off and sold for the right price. Even hospital records are becoming accessible to computer criminals with the popular demand of going digital and saving trees. With the right knowledge, family medical records could be made public and used as a disguise for thieves.

Digital coupons are a great idea for convenience and accessibility. They even support the popular campaign for keeping things green. However, they are another idea that plugs consumers into the electric grid that is so susceptible to computer hackers and online pilfers, they could end up being more expensive then what they are intended. A coupon that saves 50 cents on Tyson chicken could cost someone thousands of dollars in computer products or unpaid bills for credit cards that were never applied for.

I’m a fan of keeping things simple, but I’ll have more faith in digital technology when I see stricter security procedures put into place.

What are your thoughts on the digital grid keeping things manageable? Post your comments below or send an e-mail to meaghan.ziemba@advantagemedia.com.

Quick, open an email, address it ‘To: Everyone’ and warn everyone about this link.

By David Mantey, Editor, PD&D

“Now I know my pet carrier didn’t just grow legs and walk out of the office itself. I understand if you mistook it for your own, but if the culprit would stop by my desk to drop it off this afternoon, Crash and Burn would certainly appreciate it. For the record, Crash and Burn are kittens.”

I was fine putting up a couple bucks for the Polar Plunge once a year. I was thankful for the alert when the building management decided to run a fire drill before lunch. I had no problem ordering Girl Scout cookies by the case. I even purchased a few $10 frozen pizzas to help a kid fund a trip to DC. But, as with nearly every tool created to make our lives easier, the privilege is abused and I’m sent interoffice memos so often that my spam filter has started picking off colleagues.

Is it ever necessary to send the entire company an email about a fundraiser? Maybe I’m old school in that I prefer the anonymity of filling out a form taped to the fridge in the kitchen, but I’ve developed this twitch that automatically strikes CTRL+D whenever I see To: Everyone.

You may find it a delight – maybe you receive less than 150 emails a day, but I’m pretty sure (after conducting the least scientific survey ever) that it nags at those who receive some 20 messages a day.

At first, I thought it was a convenience. The cleaning crew was coming on Wednesday, then the switch to Thursdays and the subsequent email. Then the switch to Tuesdays with a friendly reminder to clear off your desk (improbable) if you wished for a desktop wipe down.This was followed by a reminder to fill out the cleaning crew survey, especially if you took the time to eat the accompanying Andes chocolate candy — "It takes just as long to fill out that survey as it does for that chocolate to melt in your mouth."

Interoffice alerts have included:

• Coffee (see: Crisis).
• The kitchen – “These dishes won’t wash themselves.” Or the classic, “I don’t come to work so I can be your mother.” — I love that one. I like to follow it up with a story about a family fallout that has left me in emotional shambles. I typically get a hug with the apology.
• The garbage — You don’t know how to tie a bag of trash? Really? C’mon.
• Take your kids to work day. — Shelve this idea for an entirely different column on separate lists for those with child and those who have yet to spread seed.
• Voting — with not-so-subtle hints to which party the email sender’s straight ticket ballot will be in favor for.
• Office building campus mixers – Yeah, let’s put editors, mechanics, sales people, warehouse employees and telemarketers in an unfinished level of the building and see if they want to dance to the Rolling Stones after they finish their salads. I’ve yet to see a successful social business gathering without performance-enhancing beverages. 
• Appropriate Halloween costumes — I thought I was in the clear as the Bad Idea Bear, but apparently, if you haven’t seen Avenue Q, a teddy bear telling children to drop out of school (most column-appropriate example) is humorless.
• Holiday parties (see: campus mixers).
• The farmer’s market in the parking lot – Four card tables with dying flowers and withered peppers does not a farmer’s market make.
• Parking spaces – Another favorite. I can’t help but enjoy the fury of a man or woman victimized by a parking space thief. “I’m not sure whom you are, but you must be new. If the owner of a red Dodge Neon could please move his or her car, my arthritis would appreciate it.” Did you ever notice that the affected person is never the appreciative one? It’s always the cat, dog, chicken, aching back or knees, nose, social status, etc.
• Appropriate summer attire – Guilty, I prefer man shorts to jeans.

The list goes on. I’m bound to add to it, and chances are it may cause another all-staff email.

Now, to the owner of the pet carrier, life’s too short and the workday is too long, so play Encyclopedia Brown for half a day and solve the case of the missing cage. I assure you, the cage is not in the lowest drawer of my file cabinet. Crash and Burn, run free.  

What’s the story at your office? Are your all-staff emails more humanitarian, human resources or pleas to see if anyone has an idea of who is keying cars in the parking lot? Comment below or send me an email: david.mantey@advantagemedia.com.

Here’s to a future free of alternative energy, Microsoft-branded Tesla robot weapons.

by Jeff Reinke, Editorial Director, PD&D

Even if I delved deep within both my academic and professional writing experiences, I can’t image having produced a more ridiculous headline than the one above.

To help qualify my point, this comes from a guy who at one time in his illustrious career had to design promotional materials for a band called Little Blue Crunchy Things. However, unlike the music of said group, I do have a point.

Based on the analytics that we use to track reader clicks on our newsletters and websites, the words in that headline are hot buttons that should help us garner the privilege of being viewed by a higher number of your highly-prized eye balls. So don’t feel bad if this collection of not-so-random buzz terms got you to click on this column.

What should be of greater concern is that it’s a trend not exclusive to validation-seeking, overly competitive trade editor hacks like me whose obsession with click totals is borderline comparable to Gollum and his Precious ring.

While all companies want to preach about the salvation of innovation and originality, we’re all prone to latching on to the hot topics of the day. In the mid-90s anybody with any concept for a website secured outrageous amounts of venture capital with little or any understanding of how soon they’d become profitable, or how effective their approach could actually be in producing the desired user results. These investors paid dearly when the dot-com bubble burst.

Today, I think we’re caught in somewhat of a paradox.

Everyone wants to innovate but in many instances, especially with R&D funds being what they are right now, it makes more sense to simply try and do it better, or in some cases, cheaper than the other guy. So we latch on to terms and try to take advantage of fuel cell technology, new communication apps or label just about anything we possibly can with a sustainability tag.

The problem is that appreciation of the term often overshadows a lack of technological understanding. As a result, companies get away from their core competencies and do more harm to their brand than any good that could come from a next generation offering.

In an effort to join in the fray of what all the kids are talking about, companies lose sight of their core strengths and put their identity at risk.

As a media company we obviously develop content around the most important topics of the day, in accordance with how they sync with our readership’s critical issues. However, we’re not looking to open up a broadcasting station to compete with TV and radio.

We know our strengths and work towards using hot button content to take advantage of those strengths via delivery mechanisms that we know, understand and can effectively deploy. As a result, we’ve grown and become more successful.

There’s a lot to be said for expanding reach and product offerings, but within the right context when responding to new consumer wants and demands.

That said, here’s to a future free of alternative energy, Microsoft-branded Tesla robot weapons.

What are your thoughts? Post comments below.

The upside of the down economy.

by Jonathan C. Smith, senior industrial designer, IDSA

If you are like me, unemployed, then you are all too familiar with the anxieties related to interviewing. This event plays out in many ways but here is how it has played out for me since January 15th 2009, when I was laid off.

I search a variety of Career and Monster job sites, looking for an opportunity I am a fit for. I discover a few opportunities and then tailor my resume to fit their needs as it relates to my experience and capabilities; I never imply that I am capable of doing something I am not, that could get ugly real quick. I prepare a cover letter that conveys information about me, my interests and what I can bring to the organization.

Inevitably I receive a standard response via email, indicating that they have received my resume and will be reviewing applications for the next few weeks, after which time I will be notified if I meet their needs.

Now on to the so called adventures:

I was called in for an interview at a newly formed company. I arrive ten minutes early and discover that the company doesn’t use the name it presented in the job listing, but instead goes by another name. I knock on the door, open it and see what appears to be a move in progress.

I am asked what I am there for and then asked to have a seat in a room far away from the events I saw transpiring moments before. I wait patiently for my contact to come in and meet me and a few minutes later she arrives along with another manager. I am asked a series of predetermined questions and my responses are transcribed for future reference.

Because I am there for a design position I expect that I will be asked to see my portfolio, but I am not. Which I thought was quite odd. I later learned that the opportunity didn’t actually exist. Their true intentions were to solicit information and then implement those solutions on an as needed basis utilizing the talent they already had available.

In retrospect, I should have gotten a clue when the name was different than advertised. It was a great learning experience and also provided me with a new perspective about the current economy.

Another recent interviewer asked me to play the role of developing business leads after which time I would present them to said employer, without being paid for it. I did say that I would be happy to develop new business opportunities while also designing the solutions to fit their needs if there were a salary involved. They said they weren’t interested in paying anyone to do this work, but they would appreciate it if I would do it.

I was a bit puzzled and after thanking them for their time I promptly left the meeting.

I have also interviewed for “Ghost” positions where the off site recruiter described a position to me that I was very aware didn’t exist. I am aware of this because I know three different people who work at this organization and none of them are aware that an opportunity existed, as even they are a bit weary of leaving work before 6pm as they may be viewed as “not being devoted to the needs of the company in these hard times”.

This is something that I have encountered a number of times. Some recruiting firms have quotas which their employees are required to meet. This doesn’t always mean they must interview a set number of people per month or per week. But it can mean that they must generate new leads and in roads to companies or firms that they can one day reach out to in an attempt to develop new business relationships with.

So when you submit five or six references along with your resume, be sure to clear it with your references first and then follow up with them to enquire if they were contacted by said company.

Overall my “adventures” haven’t been bad. By in large I have had more positive experiences and met more great people than I would have if I were not in this position. Even writing this article was a bit of a challenge. I have really learned a lot about myself, my interests and what things to be aware of when looking for a new opportunity.

If nothing else this has been a great experience for me as a person and as a designer, one who is looking for a solid opportunity where he can contribute to the greater good.

What are your thoughts? Post your comments below.

In the 21^st century, it’s true that the abolishing nature of certain weapons have become more severe.

by Meaghan Ziemba, Associate Editor, PD&D

I am not one for war. It is a devastating fact of life when two conflicting views clash together, and force seems to be the only resolution. I do, however, understand why it is necessary so that certain beliefs, freedoms and authority can be maintained, and I’ve always been fascinated with the evolution of weaponry used to carry out its force of destruction.  

War is a part of everyone’s past, present and future and casualties are inevitable. Some of the casualties always include innocent bystanders that get caught between the crossfire of conflicting views, and with advancements in technologies, weaponry has come a long way from face-to face, sword-on-sword combat.

With sensors and tracking devices, a push of a button can destroy city blocks and every living creature that resides in them by spraying hot, molten copper.

It’s no longer aim, shoot and hope for the best; it’s missiles tracking the targets and trailing them till they’re destroyed. It’s less of a physical combat skill and more of technological accuracy – and if you’re a civilian within 300 yards of a dropped bomb, you have no chances of running away or hiding.

In an attempt to decrease the amount of civilian casualties advanced weaponry created, a recent article discusses U.S. soldiers testing a Land Warrior system that involves egg-sized cameras that give a 360-degree view of civilian and hostile areas. It separates the soldiers from the war zones, and provides an advanced view of certain areas and the subjects involved. If there are hostile forces present, troops can paint the area for an air strike, however if there are too many civilians, catastrophe can be avoided.   

The dragon-egg kit sort of brings back the principles behind a “gentleman’s war” leaving civilians out of the mix. Soldiers can make better observations and strategize accordingly with the images they are provided, while sparing innocent lives and hitting the target with greater accuracy. They can also communicate their findings with other troops in distant areas using a thumb control on a device similar to a Blackberry, and extending the range of defense.

Land Warrior systems; such as the Dragon egg kit, highlights the changing nature of warfare in the 21^st century. With robotic systems, pilotless planes, wireless and sensor technology, it’s true that the abolishing nature of certain weapons have become more severe, but the accuracy of them has become more precise in destroying the enemy instead of destroying the enemy and everything that happens to be around them at the time of detonation.

The engineering of war has become more conscious of preserving life while it seeks to destroy it, and the future weapons of combat seem to be getting closer to replacing all human troops, which may have it advantages and disadvantages depending what side of the spectrum your standing on.

Corporate companies use private labeling as an attempt to maintain their competitive stance over smaller businesses.

by Karen Langhauser, Editor-in-Chief, Food Manufacturing

My friends are constantly inviting me “out for coffee.” Now, I like coffee — I drink at least three cups a day — but coffee is not recreational to me; it’s functional. Quite frankly, if I want to sit around with a few friends and socialize, I’d rather have a beer.

Much to my excitement, I learned the other day that both beverages can now be enjoyed in the same place. Why feed just one addiction when you can cater to several at once? Thank you, 15th Avenue Coffee and Tea! Besides offering beer and wine in a coffeehouse setting, this Seattle-based location will offer pastries, ice cream, daily coffee and tea “cuppings,” and live musical entertainment — everything necessary to provide the ideal local, rustic coffeehouse experience.

But did a local coffeehouse really come up with such an ingenious plan (and foot the bill for a liquor license)?

Nope. This can only be the work of one coffee mastermind — you guessed it — Starbucks. It seems that Starbucks has remodeled a Seattle location to resemble a traditional, neighborhood coffee shop. Starbucks describes the pilot coffeehouse design as “eclectic and raw, featuring locally sourced and reused materials that are one-of-a-kind.” The corporate powerhouse seems to have taken cues from actual local coffeehouses in Seattle — as several neighborhood coffeehouses have reported frequent visits from Starbucks employees, taking notes and carrying folders labeled “Observation.” But here’s the catch: the new coffeehouse will serve Starbucks coffee, but without the Starbucks label.

To a degree, it seems as though Starbucks has ventured into the private label business…with itself.

I’ve received conflicting feedback on my plant tours in regards to private labeling. Some plants have seen tremendous growth from the private label practice, and are pleased to see their product on so many supermarket shelves, even if customers don’t necessary know it’s their company’s product. Other companies have taken offense to my inquiries of private labeling. They are proud of their brand and would never “sell out” by allowing another company to put its name on a product that said company didn’t actually produce.

In most private labeling scenarios, the brand name on the supermarket shelf – not the name of the behind-the-scenes manufacturer — is the one trusted and recognized by consumers. Starbucks seems to have reversed the scenario. But why would a coffee powerhouse choose to hide behind a no-name local label?

Perhaps Starbucks is aware of the growing number of consumers who shun the corporate commercialism displayed by its coffee empire. Perhaps they have realized that the Starbucks brand has become more synonymous with inflated prices and corporate greed than with good coffee.

So what better way to win back the hearts of coffee drinkers than deception? As someone who tries to support local businesses, I might actually enter a coffee shop called 15th Avenue Coffee and Tea, thinking I’m helping Joe Coffee feed his family. Meanwhile, what I’m really doing is helping Howard Schultz tile the guest bathroom on his yacht. And while it may LOOK and FEEL like a local coffee house, it clearly is not. This to me is the coffeehouse equivalent of visiting “France,” “Italy,” and “Germany” at Epcot and then calling yourself well-travelled.

But despite seeming somewhat underhanded, the private label business and re-branding efforts might actually pay off for Starbucks — after all, they have the big bucks to pay for a top marketing team, don’t they?

What are your thoughts on private labeling? Post your comments below.

“While we need to know and understand the past, and in some cases even celebrate it in order to learn and avoid potential pitfalls, it’s not a place to dwell.”

by Jeff Reinke, Editorial Director, PD&D

We all had at least one. And I’m willing to wager that if you were tasked with having to clean out the garage, shed, attic or home of a grandparent, aunt, uncle or parent who was or is a certified pack rat, you vowed to never follow suit. Fortunately, thanks to the composition of current product lifecycle dynamics, recycling programs and an insatiable consumer appetite for customized solutions, you should have no problem keeping that promise.

I remember cleaning out both of my grandfather’s garages. For the most part it was pretty cool. A ton of old tools resembling medieval torture devices, countless coffee cans of decades-old hardware and everything from 30-year-old hub caps to wooden pallets and broken fish tank motors that both were sure they could find a use for … some day. Of course this is a generation that grew up during the depression, was used to fixing things themselves and therefore didn’t see the value in simply throwing something away. How times have changed.

If I was somehow able to buck the societal paradigms of shorter product lifespans, enhanced recycling programs and the overall disposable nature of many every day items, my garage wouldn’t be filled with metal fasteners and semi-dangerous implements. Rather, it would house numerous plastic hardware pieces and different attachments that could be used with a single tool handle. Instead of an old engine block heater that still actually worked, there would be countless generations of useless cell phone chargers with outdated connectors.

This realization, while moderately disheartening from a nostalgic vantage point, is also quite inspiring. We’ve advanced to a point where the next product generation is too far advanced to even bother with holding on to yesterday’s remnants. The components and approaches of even the recent past are simply a starting point in taking the next technological step. So while the Antique Road Show may soon run out of new collectibles, we’ll at least have the ability to power it more efficiently with a hybrid-electric engine and regenerative braking system.

A recent post citing the concerns of classic car collectors helps emphasize my point. They feel that with recycling programs, a focus on eliminating vehicles with poor MPG marks, and the recent success (depending on your viewpoint) of the Cash For Clunkers initiative, the ability to collect vintage automobiles could be in danger. While I can appreciate these vehicles for what they are and what they offer, this doesn’t bother me in the least. Those cars that are in collections will only continue to grow in monetary value, and while there might be a gap in years of vehicles that can be collected, it doesn’t really bother me that the last mid-90s Pontiac Grand Am was recently crushed without any thought of posterity.

We live in an age that marks the death of the antique, and I think that’s something to be celebrated. While we need to know and understand the past, and in some cases even celebrate it in order to learn and avoid potential pitfalls, it’s not a place to dwell. I think any and all efforts that help preserve that notion from a product development and usage vantage point should be emphasized, as they will be key in continuing to push us forward.

Sorry grandpa.

It’s more proactive without the begging and borrowing. Attention: Sony Ericsson’s new president

By David Mantey, Editor, PD&D

Struggling mobile phone maker Sony Ericsson’s recently appointed new president had quite the golden nugget of information to offer as he took over his new post.

According to an article running today in the NY Times, Bert Nordberg, a 14-year Ericsson veteran, “[Sony Ericsson] needs to improve the product design and development processes and we need a different product portfolio to reflect what customers are asking for.”

Oh boy, the pains associated with not listening to customer demand, or refusing to change up “the way we’ve always done it.” That gem of a saying has always been a personal favorite of mine. It’s due in great part to a few of the stops tucked in the black corners of my résumé, during certain times when I simply stopped for a moment to ask, “Why?” Only to be told that precious saying swirling around the molding drain of ineptitude.

Huh, who knew that spot was still sore?

Luckily, Nordberg has seen the light and now has the luxury of looking at the successes and failures of competing companies to be able to choose a new course of direction for Sony Ericsson.

According to the article in the Times, he plans to resuscitate his company’s product lineup of mobile phones with new software and applications.

Here’s to hoping that anything they (Apple, Nokia and Google) can do, he can do better.

It’s an interesting point though. As you’re falling behind, when do you loosen the stranglehold on the past and move on? There has to be a point when you look around and think, hmm, maybe I should try something new. .

It makes me think of self-help books or the articles like 101 Ways To Make Yourself A Success. The only reason the author is a success is because he found a sucker with some paper to spare. By adhering to the author’s suggestions what are you going to do? Become a successful self-help book author? Google it, you have over a million links telling you to have a firmer handshake.

Maybe that’s why it’s one of the biggest sections in Barnes & Noble. Some person wrote a self-help book, two people bought it and subsequently published successful self-help books. Quick, someone pitch “How to write a self-help book for dummies.” This is where I was going to describe how it would never work, because why would anyone purchase a self-help book that was insulting the reader in the title … then I saw “Depression for Dummies.”   

You want one of the biggest keys to success? Look at what the person five steps ahead of you is doing.

Extract a few things that he/she is doing right and bust your (removed due to overblown sensitivity) to do it better.

Seriously, they tell you not to cheat in school but did you ever notice – that is if you ever cheated – that when you worked off a friend’s paper (read: copied), you would copy everything that was good and beef up the sections that needed a little help, creating a better end product?

It’s the American way, so why do teachers frown so heavily upon it?

Most engineers are Erector set types.

by David Mantey, Editor, PD&D

I was in the middle of an interview the other day – job related – and the voice on the other side of the line said something I found rather perplexing.

“I have a really hard time finding good design engineers, and I think it partially has to do with the way they’re trained,” he said – unfortunately, it didn’t stop there. Not that he was overly critical; it was more of a critique on training.  

“Most engineers are Erector set types. When someone issues them a problem, they go to their parts box. I look at things as processes first. Making something complicated is much easier than making something simple.

Reducing it down to the point where you couldn’t remove another part to make it better – that’s the way I like to look at it. It’s a right brain process, not a left brain process at first. The left brain part comes in later.

In R&D, the guys upstairs will give you a problem and the first thing people do is go to the parts box and then what you end up with is a solution with a lot of parts and you end up having to take five parts off to get to the part that needs the most service.

The last five percent, the subtleties is when you get the difference between a Porche and a Yugo. I find that in colleges, engineers are teaching designers. Design engineering is design and then engineering – not engineering and then design. Engineering comes about two-thirds along through the process.”

To me it sounded like he just had a few poor experiences with hires that he may or may not have had any control over.

I understand how a team can’t always work well together if it isn’t made up of a roster full of the Bossman’s handpicked associates, but I can’t agree with the blanket generalizations.    

What do you think?  Is he on to something here or way off base – especially if he’s working with design engineers everyday? Post your comments below.

It’s a Star Wars dream or nightmare depending on whom you side with. Personally, I’m going to have to side against anything proihuman annihilation. But it seems like the dark side always has the more advanced weaponry.

By David Mantey, Editor, PD&D

Among the many calls for action by the panel of industry experts August 5 at NIWeek in Austin, TX, a few tidbits of info caught my attention and caused spastic Terminator-esque doomsday scenarios in my mind.

I can’t be held responsible, the panel brought up the subject. Apparently, one question that Dr. David Barrett, director of the Senior Capstone Program in Engineering (SCOPE) at Olin College often fields, relates to human vs. droid futuristic scenarios that don’t stray far from the basic plot behind the Terminator franchise.

The subject sprang up as a result of a question from the audience that boiled down to the ethical debate in innovation. How do we know if/when we’ve gone too far? Would we know or would it be too late?

Essentially, the panelists stated that technology is a tool, and like any tool, it comes with great responsibility. Hearing the Yoda bubble to the top? Luckily, the panel brought it back down to earth by adding … but don’t be naïve.

As long as we have innovators striving towards the utopian greater good, we cannot refute the fact that others are working just as hard – if not harder – to counteract any good we try and add to this planet in our 80-odd years on board.

The crowd was coming to terms with the current cloud lurking over our sunshine and lollipop naivety when Ellen Purdy, enterprise director of joint ground robotics for the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), appropriately added that the autonomous weapon is coming.

While Purdy stated that the DoD didn’t have a hand in financing or developing the project, she was aware of “robots trained [programmed] to fire on people.” Suddenly, I don’t feel nearly as qualified to battle a droid army as I did when my brothers and I pushed a battalion back into my father’s field and successfully defended the Eagle’s Nest with canes, bats and two sticks tied to the ends of a broken swing that served as a custom nunchuck. 

The implications of the evil genius. I suppose that if we’re equipping kids with programming software along with their LEGO sets, it’s not too far of a reach to discuss a hobbyist who builds a robotic guard dog that snipes trespassers.

Specifics weren’t given, but the sometimes grim undeniable candor from the panel was chilling. Then again, are we not just as foolish when we turn a blind eye? When new ground in robotics, or any new technology, is broken, it’s ludicrous to sit back and say, “You know what? I have a good feeling about this vision system – I’m sure nobody would try to program it to recognize and annihilate a human.”

We have a divide when it comes to thinking whether or not we should when we’re gripped with the excitement of challenging ourselves to see whether or not we could.

When asked her opinion on the subject, Jeanne Dietsch, CEO and cofounder of MobileRobots, was concise. “Do we have anything to worry about?” The question echoed through the ballroom as we awaited her reply. She answered, “Yes.”   

What is your take on the ethical implications of innovation? Comment below.

America lacks innovation. Do you buy that? Get out and be somebody. Do something, anything with your talent – and refuse to bow down to fear.

By David Mantey, Editor, PD&D

The topic of discussion for a panel of industry experts at NIWeek 2009 held in Austin, TX, focused in part around a recent article on the The Failed Promise of Innovation in the U.S.

The panel featured Dr. David Barret, director of SCOPE, Olin College; Dean Kamen, founder of FIRST and president of DEKA Research and Development Corporation; Jeanne Dietsch, CEO and cofounder, MobileRobots; Ellen Purdy, enterprise director of Joint Ground Robotics, U.S. Department of Defense; and Glenn Derene, senior technology editor, Popular Mechanics.

When it comes to a supposed “lack of innovation” in America, Barrett believes it is caused by a dearth of innovation’s entire support network. According to Barrett, venture capitalists push for too fast of a turnaround, bankers are not willing to take the risk on a startup and insurance companies are unwilling to insure a new company with appropriate packages.

Barrett’s excitement on the topic echoed the crowd’s sentiment. He appeared genuine when he described how innovators receive irreversible pushback from all sides in one giant sigh of discontent. 

For Kamen, he sees a grand divide in invention compared to innovation. According to him, the rate of invention is excellent in this country. He sees innovation under a grand spotlight, mass acceptance; fire, the wheel — these were innovations.

“Americans have become a lot more conservative,” says Kamen. In Kamen’s eyes (and I agree), our society has become more conservative and thus, more afraid. Major innovations came from America when we were a “young society willing to take on challenges.” According to Kamen, “We’ve changed.”

In a free society, you get what you celebrate.

“The Great American Lie is instant gratification,” says Kamen.

Our society is bent – possibly because we were sold – on the slogan life is short, play hard. “How about life is short, work hard?” Kamen asks.

For too long, we’ve associated negative connotation to work – when we actually reap greater rewards upon successful completion of a project after long arduous work. One thing I find most perplexing is the fact that we all (well, most of us anyway) know the joy of finishing a project that has our name on it. We know the satisfaction of a job well done. We know how good it feels to come away from an experience, turn back and say, ‘I did that’ knowing that we made the world a better place, if only for a moment in a seemingly infinite series of events. Yet instant gratification has gripped our society by the bones, we’re junkies for the quick fix and we have suffered.

We have begun to waste our most precious resource, time. Barrett described how each individual only has a scarce amount of time and it is up to each individual to maximize it. It sounds cliché every time you entertain the subject, but Barrett insists that we should look at ourselves each day and ask, “Are you making the world a better place?” Our biggest pitfall is complacency and yet we’re able to glide through life with the promise of tomorrow without demanding anything from ourselves today.

Kamen adds that engineers are too insular and need to be more open and accessible to the world. His call to action? Pass the passion and excitement onto kids. “The technical community gets an A+, we’ve been an engine of success,” Kamen says. “Business and government try to screw it up.”

The technical community, however, receives a C when it comes to educating people on what exactly it is that engineers do, according to Kamen.

“We can’t simply say that it’s not our problem anymore,” says Kamen. “The technical community needs a louder voice.”

I’m not sure whose voices he may be asking to step forward, but Kamen’s rang throughout the auditorium with the utmost clarity. 

What’s your take? Comment below. 

“I see the future of energy harvesting being one where the engineers, designers, researchers, manufacturers, and all other associated professions play an integral role.”

by Jonathan C. Smith, IDSA, Senior Industrial Designer

Energy Harvesting? Let’s begin by establishing a definition for the phrase. Energy harvesting as defined on Wikipedia - is the process by which energy is derived from external sources (e.g., solar power, thermal energy, wind energy, salinity gradients, and kinetic energy), that is captured, and stored.

If we look around us, we notice how much energy each of us consumes and how much energy we expend in order to live life in the fashion in which we are accustomed, which is different for everyone. Energy harvesting is only limited by our ability to give pause and identify the ways in which we may be able to successfully extract and, very importantly, store the kinetic energy all around us.

I use the term kinetic energy because from my perspective I see a variety of sources that are ripe for the taking. But our ability to store that unused portion of energy for later use, transference, or passive consumption is very important, one which has been the focus of millions of R&D dollars and where I see the future of energy harvesting having the greatest impact.

I see the future of energy harvesting being one where the engineers, designers, researchers, manufacturers, and all other associated professions play an integral role. We have to eliminate the focus on dollars and instead set our sights on solutions for the betterment and longevity of humanity. I am not leading to a dooms day scenario in any way, I am saying that we all need to listen to our inner voice and do what is best for humanity. Our resources are finite and if we can manage to go to the “optometrist of humanity” to have our vision checked. We will be able to see where and what we should be doing to ensure our resources is used to the best of their ability.

We are seeing how many nations are standing on the rest of the world’s shoulders as it relates to telecommunication. i.e.: rural China. These same nations and those still in development will use what we have developed in order to improve their quality of life, and the best available option is what will be utilized.

I see street lights that have their own combination of solar cells (paint) and wind harvesting capabilities, and the light emitted from these structures are based on some low consumption high output method, such as LED’s or OLED’s.

I see cars that drive on high traffic highways and through city streets that are covered in a piezoelectric system that harvests that energy. I see the cars having mechanisms that can capture the wind as they are being driven in order to recharge the batteries used to power them. Both of these systems need to store the energy we harvest in a well considered fashion. Too much energy is lost as we move it from one place to another.

But I only see things from my perspective. And I know that I am but one voice that can ask “what would you do?” or “how else can we do it?” I leave the rest up to you, those who are in the industries that can most directly affect the choices we have when it comes to consumption. The power of suggestion is incredible. I press you to get the conversation going and see where it takes the organization you work for. Your decision to begin the dialogue can make the difference.

:: Mobile :: 224.430.4300
:: Portfolio :: www.jonathancsmith.com
:: Portfolio :: www.coroflot.com/515design
:: Linkedin :: www.linkedin.com/in/jcsmith515
:: My Blog :: www.designexposed.com

What are your thoughts? Post your comments below.

“The way forward is not about trying to bring back fallen legends, but listening to current-day demands and answering them with new solutions.”

by Jeff Reinke, Editorial Director, PD&D

One of my favorite all-time movies is Steve McQueen’s Bullitt. It’s not that the movie itself is all that special, but anyone familiar with it knows exactly why it’s among my top picks. It contains a scene that is considered to have revolutionized the way Hollywood filmed car chases. So if you enjoy late 60’s muscle and haven’t seen the movie, do yourself a favor and either rent it or YouTube it for a look at Frank Bullitt’s Highland Green 1968 390 Fastback Mustang in pursuit of the bad guys in a Tuxedo Black 440 Magnum Charger (my favorite of the two cars) from the same year.  

Now, even though I appreciate the punch-in-the-face lines and underhood rumble of these vintage vehicles, I don’t really qualify as a “car guy”. As long as there’s a little style, it’s safe and gets decent gas mileage, I’m not a zealous critic of automotive design. I think vehicles like the Tesla  and Scorpion are amazing, and am equally intrigued by the XP project, as well as other developments like Audi’s turbo diesel initiatives, but those are more about performance and technology than getting over-heated about the vehicle itself.

It’s about weighing function and economics when it comes to my own vehicle of choice. At the end of the day if I can get from point A to B in a comfortable manner then I’m pretty happy with my Chevy Impala. I appreciate those offerings with added features and functions, as well as the raw power of yesterday’s muscle cars, but to me a car is a commodity. I don’t think I’m alone here either, and a recent release about some polarizing brands in the automotive sector seems to reinforce that notion, and offer perspective on design innovation versus legacy brand power.

Based in Mumbai, India, Tata Motors has made headlines over the last 18 months for primarily two reasons. The first was the unveiling of their Nano vehicle. Positioned as a way to help those in India afford an automobile, the 2-cylinder 4-passenger vehicle retails for less than $3,000.  Then, in an interesting move late last year, the company purchased the Jaguar and Land Rover brands from Ford.

A release from earlier this week indicated that while sales for the company within India have been strong, the $3 billion loan Tata needed for the acquisition is starting to affect overall profitability. Basically, for their fiscal year that ended in March, the company lost over $500 million, as opposed to a $450 million profit the year prior.

Even before the Nano, Tata had a domestic niche in their home market that allowed them to operate at a very healthy margin. Then they brought in two brands that, while held in very high esteem, are seeing their overall marketplace interest dwindle. Reasons for the waning interest varies from competitive factors to price to fuel efficiency to the fact that service is more complicated. We look at a new Jag rolling down the street and admire what it can do, but how many people are able to purchase one in the current economic climate or willing to endure the added obstacles when an equivalently priced Mercedes or BMW with the same capabilities offer fewer logistical issues?

I think there will always be a place for products like a Jaguar or Land Rover, and even the highly inefficient muscle cars that I still love, but in today’s age of shorter product lifespans, fickle customer demands, tighter pocketbooks and buyers who want greater levels of customized solutions, there can be only one reason why Tata would look at complicating their offerings with these two brands – notoriety.

They probably got a great deal as Ford looked to infuse the company with some much needed cash flow, and the acquisition might have put a legitimate face on Tata in some circles as they look to expand their global offerings, but this zeal for look-at-me attention could be their downfall. The purchase seems to reek of a focus on what it could do for the company instead of the value it provided the customer. Now Tata is learning that regardless of how much fat they trim from these legacy brands, it won’t change the face of competitive influences or customer desires. Here lies the lesson learned.

The gospel of global competitiveness preaches innovation as its guiding light, not clinging to the ideas of a failing legacy. I guess that’s why I found this report so disheartening. I wish Tata would have realized the same thing, and hopefully as designers you do as well. The way forward is not about trying to bring back fallen legends, but listening to current-day demands and answering them with new solutions.

What's your take? Post your comments below.

“Every birthday and Christmas I’m tempted to launch my own personal vendetta against the individual responsible for designing the packaging products used on Barbie and many of her playtime cohorts.”

by Jeff Reinke, Editorial Director, PD&D

Today is my daughter’s birthday. For the most part, this is great thing. I know she’ll eat way too much sugar, but her friends will help burn that off with constant laps around the swing set, kitchen table, adult supervisors and any other object unable or unwilling to move as 10 giggling six-year-olds assault the house and yard. And in addition to having fun with her little sister and friends, she will also get showered with presents – presents that I think offer an interesting perspective on approaches to new product design.

Without going out on too much of a limb I will guarantee that at least one of the gifts she receives will be a Barbie. And just to be clear, I really have nothing against the blonde-haired American icon. However, every birthday and Christmas I’m tempted to launch my own personal vendetta against the individual responsible for designing the packaging products used on Barbie and many of her playtime cohorts.

You see, my job for today will basically be to make sure no limbs are lost, no calls to the fire department are needed when engaging the birthday cake candles and, finally, to remove (and possibly assemble) many of the gifts as my daughter waits in anticipation of playing with her new collection of ponies, dolls and board games. After I struggled with removing (which I was repeatedly told took forrrrrrrrrreeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeever) all the clips, plastic wire type fasteners and whatever those really thin rubber string deals are from her first batch of gifts Sunday night, my thoughts drifted to the genesis of their design.

In essence these clips, strings, etc. do their job. They keep the toy well-guarded through transport and distribution while also serving their retail master well in the way the toy is displayed on store shelves. Also, any frustration, while taunting their patience levels, doesn’t alienate the target audience. And, admittedly, I actually get somewhat of a sadistic kick out of watching other dads deal with the same packaging issues when I’m on the other end of the situation.

Still, to me this situation offers an interesting perspective on product design. Not unlike many new product introductions, the focus with this packaging was on the final result – an untarnished toy, as opposed to customer convenience. In my opinion one of the driving factors behind everything from new features in automobiles to consumer electronics and even industrial equipment is the implementation of intuitive controls and simplified usability. Essentially, the focus is on convenience and making everything about the purchase as easy and enjoyable as possible.

These packaging materials, while playing more of a supportive role, are still individual products that are designed, manufactured and implemented like any other. What I found interesting is that they offer a contradictory vantage point in that the focus is not on convenience, but in delivering the final result. While performance has been the antithesis for innovation since the first schematic of a wheel, the drive for added convenience in product design has been around since people realized that more could be carried in a basket then with their hands. I guess I just found it interesting that Barbie has become as much a slave to function, and not as polarized to form.

We’d love to hear how you feel about balancing user convenience and end product performance. Send me an e-mail or register and post your comments below.

“I’ve enjoyed the odd task of interviewing dozens of prospective job candidates for positions within our publication group, and I’m always up for a disastrous tale of inappropriate behavior.”

by Anna Wells, Editor, IMPO

When I saw the CNN.com headline “43 Weird Things Said in Job Interviews,” I had to click. Throughout my career, I’ve enjoyed the odd task of interviewing dozens of prospective job candidates for positions within our publication group, and I’m always up for a disastrous tale of inappropriate behavior. Some of the highlights:

Why should we hire you?

"I would be a great asset to the events team because I party all the time."

Do you have any questions?

"What is your company's policy on Monday absences?"

Why are you leaving your current job?

"Because I (expletive) my pants every time I enter the building."

Personally, my favorite interview scenario is the one where we spend 20 positive minutes communicating before the interviewee—in one spastic moment of verbal negligence—shoots him or herself in the foot. Sometimes we both realize it; other times, it’s only me, while the candidate jabbers on, blissfully unaware of the faux pas.

It’s this situation I find most interesting, because it leads me to believe that many of us are somewhat oblivious as to how we present ourselves to others.

Maybe I’m taking this too far, but perhaps our reality-TV culture has placed too high a value on displaying frank, candid portraits of ourselves. What happened to the concept of putting forth your best face? Just because you’re not a morning person doesn’t make you not qualified for certain positions; I’d just rather not know.

Considering that right now we sit in the toughest job market in decades, it seems reasonable to expect a basic level of preparation and aptitude during a job interview. Perhaps I’m the youngest “old school-er” around, but I’m a piranha in there; don’t drop a curse word or forget your necktie, or you probably won’t make it out alive.

I joke about the “rules,” but ultimately, it’s not about a set of arbitrary guidelines of professionalism. Really, it’s about finding the right people for the job, a task that’s not as easy as it sounds. Can you decipher, beyond a good resume, who might function best in a team environment? Are you asking the right questions in order to find that out?

When it comes to the few jobs that are available: What are you looking for in a candidate once they sit down in front of you?  Heck, I’d even like to hear about your interview horror stories. Post them below.

By the time new products and technology become affordable to the general public, they’re more like hand-me downs from the rich than innovational.

by Meaghan Ziemba, Associate Editor, PD&D

Being the youngest of 6, I was used to growing up wearing my siblings’ clothes and being somewhat behind the fashions.

I played with my sisters’ Barbies, and if they weren’t done with them, I was stuck with my brothers’ broken and chewed up GI Joes that had survived heroic battles with firecrackers and smoke bombs.

Occasionally, I received brand new toys and clothes — for Christmas and my birthday — but most of the time my belongings were recycled through the family, beginning at the oldest and ending with me.

When I received my first job as a hostess in a small restaurant in our hometown, I was ecstatic because being employed meant buying my own things and not waiting for my brothers and sisters to either grow out of them or become bored with them. To this day, I enjoy working hard for the occasional fancy box of fine chocolates or expensive pair of designer jeans.

However, a recent article discussing the WhiteKnight2 – a twin-fuselage airplane that will help launch a ship into space – caused flashbacks of those hand-me-down days when I was sporting a brother’s oversized camouflage shirt with a pair of my sister’s cut-off jean shorts – proceed with your imaginations.

"Virgin Galactic doesn't have a launch date yet, but has taken 300 reservations at $200,000 each and is holding $40 million in deposits. Customers include scientist Stephen Hawking and "Superman Returns" director Bryan Singer,” according to Virgin Galactic President Will Whitehorn.

But what about those of us who are not famous scientists, directors, athletes and movie stars who can only imagine what $200,000 looks like? Two words – popular demand.

Most of the time for the general public to afford such innovative technologies or designs, they have to wait for it to become extremely popular for the prices to decrease. By the time new products and technology become affordable, they’re more like hand-me downs from the more fortunate than innovational. 

The majority of us find ourselves sulking in the corner with yesterday’s hits, staring envious at their new toys of entertainment. 

And it’s not just with space travel. Electric cars are expected to hit the market – again - at $35,000+. Don’t worry, once demand increases everyone will be able to afford one. We just have to give the important people their play time before they allow everyone else in on the fun.

Same with cell phones, wireless devices and electronics. I thought everyone would be envious of my iPod when I first purchased it but was greeted with, “Wow, it’s pink and mine holds twice as many songs;” forcing me to return back to my dark corner.

Don’t get me wrong, I appreciate all the new things coming out onto the market and the promise they hold for improvement and advancement, and acknowledge the excitement behind a plane that transports us through space or a car that eliminates our dependence on fuel; but I’m not going to really care about it until it’s my turn for playtime. Even then the next ‘big’ thing will already be on the shelves taunting my incapability to purchasing it. 

So to Mr. Burt Rutan and Sir Richard Branson…two thumbs up on the creative plane; wake me up when it’s my turn.

What's your take? Post comments below.