I think that this attitude comes from two things:

1) Sometimes, when things are released late, they never gain
significant market share because others were there first.

2) Good engineers are usually perfectionists. Excellent engineers are
good engineers who have developed the prudence to know when to let a
problem persist in the final product and when to keep working at it.
Managers know that many engineers would never finish improving the
product if the deadlines were not enforced. Again, some balance needs
to be struck here where problems where the probability of occurrence,
frequency of opportunity for occurrence, severity of consequences,
difficulty of finding a solution, general concern for quality, cost of
engineering time, cost of delays are all balanced. Sometimes this
balance is struck in a way which puts too much weight on profit and
too little on human life. That is wrong, but one also cannot ever
develop a product with NO remaining problems.

Sean


On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 11:37 AM, Funny NYPD <funnynypd@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On large OEMs, on-time release is much important than "release it right, =
maybe a few days late".
>
> In the large companies (fortune 200s) I worked, It is not new that: the M=
BA managers' "on-time release" philosophy forced the engineer(s) to release=
 a parts or design with fault/"incomplete status" on the project due day, t=
hen have it fixed later.
>
> I used to work at a major OEM whose new vehicle has 100% "90-days comebac=
k rate" (back to the dealer to fix all kind of staff), all cost is under wa=
rranty, and the MBA managers still claim profit and be proud of what they a=
re doing. It seems all they care is their bonus (tied strictly to "on-time =
release"), not a heavy duty truck could run into a gas station or have some=
 accident due to the fault decision.
>
> My personally experience at different OEMs tells me 75%~80% of the autos/=
trucks quality issue should be resolved at the design stage. The engineer w=
ho designed those staff should be counted on, and be given enough time and =
resource to accomplish the job.
>
> =A0Funny N.
> Au Group Electronics, http://www.AuElectronics.com
> http://www.AuElectronics.com/products
> http://augroups.blogspot.com/
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Peter <plpeter2006@yahoo.com>
> To: piclist@mit.edu
> Sent: Thu, January 28, 2010 8:54:33 AM
> Subject: Re: [OT] Toyota - fly by wire?
>
> More fun with 'automatic' systems and fly by wire car systems:
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03/12/kamikaze_prius/
>
> The problem is hardly new, complexity lowers the MTBF of systems and MBAs=
 lower
> the bar, ignoring known safe control solutions for cost reasons. Heck, ev=
en the
> Eagle (Apollo moon landing module) had software bugs. As to skimping on a=
 $5
> plastic linkage in a $15,000 car, that looks very much like an MBA who ne=
eds to
> be looking for another career. I doubt whether an engineer in his sane mi=
nd
> would allow such a device.
>
> =A0Peter
>
>
> --
> http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
> View/change your membership options at
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
>
>
>
>
> --
> http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
> View/change your membership options at
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
>

-- =

http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist