Engineering Management and the advent of fast electronic communications (Internet)

In the past 40 years a number of studies have been undertaken aimed at solving the problems of managing and controlling the concept, design, development, production, and support of large and complex technical systems. The following summarizes and updates the findings.
Traditional management organizational control has always been hierarchical; each manager having a number of submanagers (between three and seven seems to be the norm) who have their own subordinates and so on. Such organizations can be very effective in making maximum use of resources, but suffer major weaknesses; communication and project accountability across the organization at one level is poor, and it is difficult to monitor and correct the performance of individual managers and project status at any given point in time.
While this structure is good for organizing a large office or production (manufacturing) factory it has been found to be inadequate for the management of the specification, design and development projects for large and complex technical systems. This inadequacy comes from the departmental managers raising barriers by refusing to release information which would allow outsiders to query decisions.
The ability to raise queries on technical information during the systems evolving design and development is of vital importance; it is crucial that questions be asked and answers given as early possible. Only in this way is it possible to successfully prevent large errors and integrate large and complex systems, to feedback information on past mistakes and successes and feedforward anticipated problems for which timely solutions must be found.
20 years ago a solution evolved whereby projects were assigned specialist staff from the various functional areas to work in Integrated Product Groups/Teams (were known as Work Package Groups). However, problems with hierarchy for professional matters and career development has been shown to inhibit performance of individuals in these environments. (Specialist skills dissolve)
These type of groups appear to do well initially but in time the tendency seem to create a jack-of-all-trades and master-of-none person creating and maintaining the bureaucracy or culture which it was intended to remove. Although if sufficient management resolve and understanding is applied the fear of change may produce a more efficient culture.
With the advent of fast accessible information the importance of person-to-person interaction has been reduced (except in the exchange of ideas). What is vital however, is that data being prepared should be accessible to all who are or will be affected to allow concurrent engineering be performed.

Most companies do not focus directly on the product development needs. The focus seems to concentrate on maintaining practices set up in the distant past by an untraceable entity with emphasis on personality and verbal beliveability. With the "We do this because that's the way its always been done or think it has been done" attitude without questioning why.

Emphasis should be given to the preparation of standardized data (Example texts) items which include a standardized electronic mark-up scheme with pre-defined 'tags' (SGML, HTML, etc.,) to facilitate ready access to the various and widely stored information.
The management structure however would also have to change and control would have to be performed by the same media.
Engineering Management by persons has basically been superseded by Management Groups who will prepare, administer, enforce, and maintain a "Project Management System" a framework by which design can create but is controlled. The concept of one person in control and makes all the decisions is a remnant from the past.

The 'Systems Engineering Management Group' seems to be the best description of what is evolving into way the system will work;
However, here are some predicted functions of the "Management Group":

• Establish, document, and maintain a "Project Management System;
• Provide project chairpersons to formal reviews, design analysis, interface agreements, etc., from the project viewpoint;
• Establish, prepare, and maintain example texts for the documentation, Code of practice, Work instructions, etc., (standardization) acceptable for the project;
• Provide day-to-day advice on the interpretation of the agreed PMS;
• Establish a document library or integrated database for the project and provide status reports, etc.
• Provide a centralized or focus for decisions.
• Introduce new methods and control the tools used on the project

The benefits of this system will be:

1. Increased visibility will reduce risks;
2. Status of the project should be quickly ascertainable;
3. Specialists can be kept together thereby maintaining their professional specialization's and career prospects (people will stay and contribute);
4. Provide the means to a "paperless" design and production process.

The companies who do seize the opportunity and provide to implement such changes will obviously reap the benefits and survive into the future. Whether they be small or large businesses.

Anybody any more thoughts? Comments welcome.

(Under development)

LE FastCounter

Back to Home page MANAGING STANDARDS Home page

Please send any beneficial comments or identification of errors using the following form to: kenr@wysywig.airtime.co.uk