zlacker

>>gwintr+(OP)
I worked for GE, back in the 1980s. It was the “Neutron Jack” era.

The subunit I worked for, was almost supernaturally dysfunctional.

I was there for 18 months, and they had 3 reorgs, in that time.

Once, the VP of our division, called an “all-hands” meeting, to tell us that he was a lawyer that didn’t have a computer, didn’t like software (we were a software company), basically, didn’t like us, and that we’d better get on the stick, and make number go up.

Ah…fun times…

>>ChrisM+xP
Sounds similar to the stories I hear coming out of Boeing

>>passwo+2W
As you may already know, the McDonnell Douglas management team that took over Boeing has a direct line back to GE's Jack Welch.

https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/boeing-corporate-...

>>consum+Sl1
Are you talking about the management team that moved to DC, because why does management need to bother itself with the widgets or be tied to, you know, their product, they need be focused on the grift?

>>_DeadF+Yz2
People who don't come from a hardcore engineering background, often fail to understand what goes behind making good engineering deliverables.

This problem has complicated since MBA types people have taken over. Everything is a cost center, and goes into some model in a spreadsheet. The 'What If' feature gives you all kinds of fairly tale cost savings and optimisation options, as you turn the dials and knobs.

There is also a failure to understand that some amount of extra investments in people, quality and training is needed to keep the profits going. It might appear like they are not contributing to profits directly, but as it often happens eliminating them causes loss.

You are basically trying to modify a highly complicated and delicate process, optimised over years of lessons, changes and far sightedness. Trying to optimising entirely from a cost perspective leads to all kinds of counter intuitive results.