The seperate of labor can go to far in engineering....what the industry has is too
many different projects and specilization into only parts of a total system can lead
to optimization of those parts but not the whole. Having the engineer work on what
seems to be less projects with less specilization is coming to what the industry
calls....especially in defense (which is my experience) integrate product teams. Less
specialization in individual work effort...more integration of a total product....thus
sub part A works better with sub part B...and even more important..the part that is
designed is easier manufactured (since those engineers are on the team) and more
supportable (since the logisticians are on the team).
As cars get more complex I can see this effort at GM moving more and more towards this
Intergrated Product and Process Development (IPPD). We have been doing in Department
of Defense and Defense Industry (with the slightly more complex items that have a
little more of a punch to them) for years.
John Driessnack
Lt Col, USAF....
-----Original Message-----
From: john hull [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Fri 3/29/2002 8:18 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc:
Subject: general motors
Howdy,
General Motors is putting into place a plan which I
find a bit confusing. Let me describe it (as best I
can) and maybe someone can explain why it's a good
idea. Here goes.
GM is going to be instituting its Design Engineer [DE]
program. The way things currently work is that a
design team is responsible for designing a part, let's
say a checking fixture, per the engineering input
and/or plan. So an engineer is given a checking
fixture to design, he goes to a design group who work
out the plan of design along w/ the engineer. Then
the plan goes to the next step where it is layed out
and drawn in more detail and then detailers draw out
each individual part of the fixture.
Under the current plan, an engineer may have
approximately fifteen parts on his plate.
Obviously, there is some clear division of labor here:
the engineer does the high-level design, presumably
requiring extensive training, and at each level down
the process becomes more mechanical and requires less
training. (I used to be a detailer, and it is
essentially tracing small drawings off a big drawing.)
The DE program will eliminate this division of labor.
In the DE program an engineer will have up to three
projects on his plate, as opposed to the approx.
fifteen under the current system. He will do the
high-level design to create a part that fits the need,
then he will figure out the design work needed, then
he will lay it out, then he will detail it. So he
will be working on fewer projects, but will be more
extensively involved with each project.
The explanation that I have heard for the new DE
program is that it will be more efficient.
But...having some small knowledge of economics, being
mildly familiar with Adam Smith, and having read David
Landes' "What do Bosses Really do?" (JEH, Sept. '86),
the DE program sounds terribly inefficient to me.
Obviously, it will involve the highly (and
expensively) trained engineer performing jobs
requiring much less skill. For a well paid position,
this seems like an expensive waste of time.
I suppose it may be more efficient inasmuch as the
engineer doesn't have to take time to confer with the
design team. However, it seems unlikely that such a
saving would out weigh the cost imposed by having him
perform duties that could be performed by less skilled
personnel.
Presumably GM knows what it's doing. Does anybody
have any ideas as to why this is a good program? Is
there something obvious that I'm missing? Your
thoughts and comments will be welcome!
Best regards,
jsh
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Greetings - send holiday greetings for Easter, Passover
http://greetings.yahoo.com/
