Machine Design Blogs

In addition to showcasing various manufacturing technologies, the recent NMW in Chicago had some neat presentations. Bruce Hamilton, a former manager of IT and productions departments and now a consultant, spoke on “Lean” and the underlying idea that “Less is More.” He says Americans like “big ideads, big changes, and big everything in implementing change for the better. But we look in the wrong places. Usually, companies attempt to do things “easier, better, faster, and cheaper.” And they always start with “cheaper.”

Hamilton then gave the example of GM, which in the 1970s spent $40 million to build a lights-out factory to get rid of people. Trouble is, improvement comes from employees who are doing the actual work, through the small changes they make over time for the better. He says our schools are in the Dark Ages in terms of Lean. Kids don’t learn by memorizing stuff, as schools seem to think. Rather, anyone learns better through what is called “tacit learning” — that is, by making mistakes. An example of a company phislosophy that works is that of Toyota, says Hamilton. The company’s thinking is summed by the acronym “TPS.” On one hand, this stands for “Toyota Production System.” But, more interestingly, it also stands for “Thinking People System.” A big reason for the success of the company is that it puts its people first — and not in such a way to forget about profit.

Here is an interesting interview with an engineering PhD who made the jump to industry from academia. A lot of the comments seem to apply equally well to any kind of worker with a graduate technical degree. I particularly liked this one:

“Ph.D.’s tend to be less likely to compromise, less able to move forward without a complete analysis. They can be labeled obstinate and hard to work with in a corporate environment. That limits their career, and they often have a hard time understanding why, since, from their perspective, they are just pursuing the “right” answer as they have been taught, and no one seems to appreciate their superior arguments.

Another frustration is the occasional ego problem. Some Ph.D.’s consider themselves above certain types of work and entitled to special treatment. A good dose of humility is always appreciated.”

Here is the link to the full interview from the Chronicle of Higher Education:

http://chronicle.com/jobs/news/2008/09/2008092401c.htm?utm_source=at&utm_medium=en

SolidWorks just held its annual Media event in Barcelona, Spain to showcase Version 9. The city is a pastel jewel full of palm trees, international travelers, and mind-blowing architecture by Gaudi. I took a stroll earlier on the boardwalk by the Mediterranean Sea. People here are quite sophisticated — a topless beach nearby brought not one single stare. There are plenty of long-haired Spanish beauties, but to balance things out, there are also millions of buff young hulks.

Back to business….SolidWorks CEO Jeff Ray in his opening speech says in a global economy with new players such as India and China, the best products have a high quality, low manufacturing cost, new fuctionality, better performance, and high customer satisfaction.

He also explains that the recent company name change — SolidWorks is now officially Dassault Systemes SolidWorks — symbolizes a closer working relationship between the companies. Dassault can benefit from SolidWorks’ strong reseller channel, and SolidWorks can benefit from Dassault 3D and PLM technology. Although SolidWorks and CATIA are each CAD programs, they target different markets, says Ray. “CATIA is big in aerospace and some automotive. You have to respect the way the customer does business,” he says. “You can’t get caught in the trap of believing your own bullshit or marketing hype.”

Ray notes a convergence between gaming technology and design, so the company is buying a lot of gaming IP. The goal is customer satisfaction, and — always — profit. “Profit is an instantiation of the customer’s belief in you,” he says. Ray also says soon computing will be done “in the cloud,” with programs such as SolidWorks online.

Probably one of the most interesting customer presentations was that of PAL Technology in Abu Dhabi. It has developed a humanoid robot that walks, talks, sits on chairs, holds a cup and pours coke in it, and the like. The robot also recognizes faces, self-localizes, and plans its path to avoid obstacles. Check out the robot

Here is an interesting item from the Chronicle of Higher Education about a univerity professor getting a $100,000 grant to study differences in Chinese and US World of Warcraft players. It is interesting on two levels.

First,………$100,000 to study World of Warcraft?????

Second, read the carping after the item from researchers who have trouble getting grants for their own efforts.

http://chronicle.com/wiredcampus/article/3320/professor-given-100000-to-study-world-of-warcraft?utm_source=at&utm_medium=en

As the blow-ups of huge financial concerns make headlines, consider the following words of wisdom from Michael Lewitt of Hegemony Capital Management in a recent newsletter. To paraphrase Lewitt, the underlying problem causing today’s woes is not a lack of financial savey, it is a mindset of making a quick buck by moving paper around rather than by actually producing something:

Finally, we made the point that too much economic activity in the United States was aimed at speculation rather than production. For example, the equity markets are increasingly dominated by quantitative investment strategies that are driven by considerations that are totally divorced from considerations of fundamental value. At the same time, the credit markets are increasingly utilized to finance change-of-control transactions for private equity firms that are done simply because low cost financing is available, not because a project is going to add to the productive capacity or capital account of the nation. As we wrote in that April issue, “[a]t some point, society has to figure out that the way an investor earns his money is even more important than the amount of money he makes. This is why human beings were vested with moral sentiments, so they could distinguish the quality of human conduct from the quantity of its results.”

These changes cannot and will not be effected simply by legislative fiat. It is incumbent upon the gatekeepers of capital - the fiduciaries that make the decisions about allocating capital - to bring discipline to the system. This will require a rethinking of their priorities and a willingness to add to their investment calculus considerations that exceed their own narrow interests about short-term investment returns. Our system requires a new concept of fiduciary duty that encompasses systemic as well as single-firm interests, and that focuses to a greater degree on risk-adjusted returns than raw numerical returns. Obviously the forces that led to this weekend’s events have been building for many years, and the changes needed to fix the system will not be made overnight. But we should not let this occasion pass to reflect on what has occurred.

You can find Lewitt’s work at www.hcmmarketletter.com

I am posting this one only in the interest of discourse. I have looked at the NIST report on the WTC collapse. The conclusions and the analysis that led to them seem credible to me. Fantastic claims, as made in the document below, demand fantastic proof, and I don’t see fantastic proof here.

I will, however, relate a conversation I had with a guy who developed some of the first finite-element analysis code able to run on small computers. He mentioned he had walked around the WTC and had noticed the building’s framed tube design, with lateral loads supported by the exterior members. He said it was at that point he decided he really didn’t want to be in that building any longer than necessary, and walked out.

This was years before 9-11-01.

————————

For Immediate Release

Government Report Defies Laws of Physics

Architects & Structural Engineers Submit Evidence of Controlled Demolition, Disputing NIST’s Theory of 9/11 Building Collapses

Houston, TX, September 9, 2008 — The conclusions from a recent report (8/21/08) submitted by NIST, the National Institute of Standards and Technology regarding World Trade Center-7’s destruction on September 11, 2001 is contrary to all historical, visual, and physical evidence, according to an independent worldwide organization composed of more than 470 engineers and architects. WTC-7 was a 47-story skyscraper located more than a football field away from the North Tower and was not hit by any airplane, yet completely collapsed hours after the Twin Towers fell in a similar manner.

“Our engineers are preparing a technical response to the many problems in NIST’s report,” states architect Richard Gage, AIA, “but one critical element is simple: In the history of steel-framed structures, no high-rise building has ever collapsed from fire before, even when other fires were hotter, more widespread, and lasted far longer…and yet this is the explanation NIST expects us to accept.”

Kamal Obeid, a licensed Structural Engineer, concurs. “Nothing we are being told by NIST justifies how the destruction of WTC-7 and the Twin Towers was so fast, so symmetrical, and produced so much pulverized concrete. Fire in steel-framed high-rises simply cannot cause it to collapse like a house of cards. Let’s remember the Twin Tower fires only encompassed the upper floors, and burned for less than two hours. And yet, what we witnessed were three total collapses at near free-fall speed.”

Adds Structural Engineer Ron Brookman, “Many people say that 9/11 changed everything, but it didn’t change the laws of physics.”

It appears there is one explanation that these structural engineers, architects, and physicists steadfastly agree upon: Explosive Controlled Demolition.

“There is an abundance of evidence which NIST refuses to look at or even account for that clearly points to controlled demolition as the source that destroyed these buildings,” states Dr. Steven Jones, a physicist and retired professor at Brigham Young University who examined the pulverized dust at Ground Zero. “Chemical analysis found traces of thermite, a compound long used to melt steel. It is disturbing that NIST refuses to acknowledge the presence of thermite in the debris or the pools of molten metal that numerous rescue workers found “flowing like lava” in the rubble. The extremely high temperatures (4,000 + degrees Fahrenheit) associated with this molten metal is confirmed by NASA sensors, and could never have been caused by jet fuel fires, which burn at 800-1,200 degrees Fahrenhe it. Steel melts around 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit. Thermite is designed to melt steel, jet fuel cannot.”

More evidence pointing to a Thermite Controlled Demolition: Iron-rich microspheres discovered by the US Geological Survey heavily dispersed throughout the disaster site are only produced by thermite under explosive conditions. More than one hundred rescue workers testified they heard explosions just prior to the collapse of the Twin Towers.

Family members of 9/11 victims asked many of these same questions at NIST’s recent technical briefing. Over 470 architects and engineers are lending their voices and considerable expertise to those 9/11 families and many others now demanding a true independent investigation with subpoena power to find out what really happened on September 11, 2001.

###

TIP SHEET

Richard Gage, Dr. Stephen Jones, Ron Brookman, and Kamal Obeid are available for individual or group interviews. Dr. Jones and Richard Gage have appeared on dozens of interviews worldwide, including the BBC.

Bob Lewis puts out a free newsletter on management. His is one of my favorites because the comments therein are often insightful. I think he hit the mark uncommonly well with his latest effort, so I am reproducing the whole thing below. Information about how to sign up for his newsletter is at the bottom of this post.

———–

Keep the Joint Running

by Bob Lewis

ManagementSpeak: We were fortunate to have several qualified candidates apply for the position. It was, however, offered to another candidate.

Translation: Qualified candidates make our current employees nervous.

This week’s anonymous contributor took the nerve-wracking step of submitting this fine example of management euphemizing.

What were they thinking?

To appear forward-looking, Obama spoke between two Grecian columns. McCain, in contrast, proved he understood advanced technology by speaking in front of a huge digital flag instead of the more traditional cloth one.

Ridiculing the candidates is, of course, the American way. If it isn’t, all four candidates and their surrogates are un-American.

But enough fun. Take out the money, ads, speechwriters, and commentariat, and what we have are two candidates interviewing for an executive job. Think of their VP choices as their succession plans.

Imagine you could interview them. Both candidates have mostly ignored the advice my friend Nick Corcodilos frequently gives. They’re supposed to “Do the job in the interview.” Instead, in varying proportions, they’re giving you vague generalities and attacks on the other candidate.

In a real interview you would, of course, unceremoniously send home any interviewee who acted like this. We can only wish: The only attack ad worth your attention this entire campaign season was provided by Paris Hilton.

It’s your interview. What do you ask each candidate?

“Why are you interested in this job?” is a good question to ask any executive. There’s more than one appropriate answer, and you’ll learn something from their response: Some leaders find their gratification developing people; others in building effective organizations. There are those whose focus is accomplishing something important and those who are turnaround specialists.

And there are some who just want the job for the title, prestige and money, and haven’t, amazingly enough, prepared a decent answer.

“Tell me about the best hire you ever made, and the worst one. What made you decide to hire the best one? What made the person so good? And what did you do about the mistake?”

You … we … are hiring someone to run a huge organization. The most important decisions this person will make will be choosing the executive team. For the best hire you would probably want to hear about competence; also about choosing someone who was stretching but had ability and potential. The habits of success and collaboration belong in the answer as well.

You wouldn’t want to hear about loyalty as an important criterion, nor would you want to hear that a candidate likes to hire people who think the same way he or she does.

For the worst hire you might want to hear about trying the person in a different role; definitely about replacing someone who just didn’t work out.

You’ll want to ask some “how would you handle” questions, too — reality based ones that deal with current challenges. “I think we’re overstaffed right now, and our budget is tight. What would you do about it if I hired you?”

If a candidate talks about experience cutting costs you should send that candidate home. If he/she talks about experience cutting costs while maintaining the ability to deliver … about improving efficiency, performance and effectiveness … you have someone who understands what’s needed to run a real organization.

“Okay … we finish this process, I hire you, you get your ID badge. What do you do first, second and third? How do you get started?”

I’ve never regretted asking this question. Some candidates know how to map out a program, one that starts with listening and building relationships, and building an effective organization. The candidates you don’t want to hire are the ones who will start making changes immediately and unilaterally.

Running for office is a bit different, of course: Presidents have almost three months to do this before taking the oath of office, and are expected to change out the entire executive team. Still, most of the principles are the same.

All through the interviews you’d listen hard to get a sense of how each candidate thinks about the line employees who do all the real work. I’m going to pick on McCain here, because he pushed one of my buttons in his speech when he said that Obama’s healthcare plan would, “… put a bureaucrat between you and your doctor.”

First of all, private health insurance puts a bureaucrat between me and my doctor right now. And second, what is it about running for president that causes candidates to insult the men and women who will be reporting to them and looking to them for leadership?

Here’s something you wouldn’t do: Waste interview time asking about character and integrity. That’s what reference checks are for.

And anyway, what might a candidate say on these subjects that isn’t simple bragging?

————————————————————————-

Bob Lewis is president of IT Catalysts, Inc. ( www.itcatalysts.com ) an independent consultancy specializing in IT effectiveness and strategic alignment. Contact him at rdlewis@issurvivor.com.

————————————————————————-

Keep the Joint Running is now a free podcast, thanks to my partner in audio, Joe Baxter (info@josephbaxter.com). If you’d rather listen than read, just go to the iTunes store, click on Podcasts, and search for “Keep the Joint Running.” Or, use this URL for the download site: http://www.avmypodcast.com/file/KJR/273.xml

————————————————————————-

Don’t leave me sitting here in a vacuum!

Don’t leave me sitting here in a vacuum! If you think I’m full of beans, let me know. Leave a Comment (just click on the Comments button at the bottom of the homepage or any archived column) to share your thoughts with the whole KJR community (thanks to the good folks at JS-Kit, www.js-kit.com).

Or, drop me a line — the address is Letters@ISSurvivor.com.

I sometimes use Comments or reader letters in my columns. The rules:

- Comments are public, because they’re … well, they’re right at the bottom of the column.

- If you send me a letter, let me know if and how I can use it (as is, sanitized, or don’t be ridiculous - you’ll be found out and run out of town).

- Also let me know if you’d prefer to remain completely anonymous, or whether I may give you credit by name

- All letters and responses are the property of IS Survivor Publishing, division of IT Catalysts, Inc.

Copyright 2008, IS Survivor Publishing, all rights reserved.

If you like this article, why not let a friend enjoy it, too? It’s fine with me, and in fact I’d be flattered. All I ask is that you send the whole thing, including this notice. But don’t be shy … if you think they’d like it, don’t you think they should see it? But only those people - you wouldn’t want me to get a reputation as a spammer, would you?

To Subscribe, visit http://www.issurvivor.com/registerKJR.asp

Well, it is basically a prop plane used as a glider, but there is no information about where this took place or what the plane is in this video from the AVwebFlash newsletter. If anyone viewing this recognizes the terrain, perhaps they can post the info and enlighten the rest of us.

(http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/1205-full.html#198739)

“You’re gonna love this,” wrote AVweb reader Scott Evans by way of introduction to this week’s featured viral video. “We’ve all heard of dead-stick landings — now check out this dead-stick take-off!” We’re not sure what the backstory is on this clip — is that actually Bob Hoover narrating? — but it’s worth a look.

If you’ve ever wondered about how to march in a marching band, this site’s for you. Learn the fundamentals of marching style and amaze your friends. Or, try these moves out on your supervisors if, for some reason, you want to convince them you are completely crazy.

http://www.music.utexas.edu/LonghornBand/Auditions/BandClinic.aspx

Interesting piece in Daily Tech about the lack of sunspot activity. The last time this happened, the earth experienced a mini ice age.

http://www.dailytech.com/Sun+Makes+History+First+Spotless+Month+in+a+Century/article12823.htm