by Newfie » Wed 30 Apr 2014, 07:59:46
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'N')ewfie, what role does the insurance industry play in adding unnecessary complexity to your field?
For the stuff I'm talking about, virtually nill.
I was trying to focus my comments on those things that exist within the free market economy, that are ostensibly within control of the corporations.
In my work insurance has a relatively small effect.
Depending on the exact market and funding source requirement the REGULATORY requirements can be negligible to the majority of the job.
But over the past few years I have had more opportunity to work in a lightly regulated arena. That is when you can really start to see the effects of corporate ....... Gezz I struggling for a word. It's not malfeasance. It's more like confusion or ossification. Processes or mandates get put into place, but they are ineffective, or poorly run, and return no value. But they never get reviewed and relieved.
Perhaps an example.
I used to be able to run a project with myself and a good secretary using a spread sheet or simple database. Good size projects. We could handle the document control and correspondence logs just fine. But now we have Document Control Specialist, 3 & 4 on a job. They have specialized software to handle the control. They can't manage the software, that's done by a central group or third party, and you need a charge number to get programmers to adjust a feature. So the Doc Specialist are focusing on the software, the PM's have lost control, and the whole expensive process goes to hell. Repeat for various other processes and projects become self perpetuating behemoths where little actually happens.
While this is bad, if I were free to talk, I could describe one multibillion dollar projects, initiated by regulation for good hearted reasons, employing hundreds of engineers and administrators, which has a high likelihood of failure. Even if they get it working it is unlikely to produce meaningfull results. I take that back, I can think of two.
What is the relevance to the OP?
We like to think of engineering as adding value. But, from the inside looking out with an honest assessment, the actual contribution is often very small, and highly inefficient. It is a largely a service industry, the actual engineering is small compared to support an ancillary staff. Such inefficiency did not exist in earlier times. It could not exist now without the gross excess input of fossil fuels.
Perhaps not all segments are like this, but this is what I see.
Perhaps this is inevitable. You guys ever hear of the Pareto Principal?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principleBTW, We have a joke in the office that our projects are workfare for engineers, we are all sucking at the government teat. So I'm not the only one to see this.