MARCH 2001

Reader Feedback: 
Give us a piece of your mind...

On "Kaizen"…

"Is Kaizen a solution for American plants?"

Perhaps, but only if someone asks the right question. A few things will prevent this type of solution from becoming popular:

1. It smacks of too much—dare I say it—common sense. Actually go to where the problem is and implement the fix?
   
   
2. The name is not catchy. "Kaizen" might be OK if someone found a good way to hook on the "Zen" aspect, but it might be too much for people to try to pronounce—or it might be too much to have to listen to people trying to pronounce it.
   
   
3. My suggested alternative name "MBADS" might be workable, but even it has two problems: first, it’s not unique enough; the first two letters stand for "Management by," and we’ve already survived "Management by Walking Around; and second, managers might not want to admit out loud that their "new and improved" way to manage is "Management by Actually Doing Something."
   

—Mark Swope
IEEE Member
Sometimes Project "Manager" and sometimes the "Person Who Actually Does the Work" (Engineer)

*****************

On (Precollege) Education Involvement…

I have been involved in Adult Basic Education and helping individuals get their high school diploma through the GED process so they can get a job in the area. Many of them go on to college or trade school. I started as a volunteer math tutor three years ago and in September 2000, I became the head instructor for the Nebraska City, NE program. 

—Elden Plettner, Jr.
IEEE Member

*****************

On Issues Affecting Older Engineers…

George McClure’s article about older engineers was a good one. The one factor I didn’t see mentioned but that I believe is the overriding reason for discharging older engineers is that when their salaries get to a certain point—which tracks with experience and thus age—the employers want to replace them with younger engineers who can be hired at a lower salary. This factor needs to be addressed.

—Walter Elden, P.E. (Retired)
IEEE Life Senior Member

*****************

It was stated that "healthcare spending is slowly eroding national savings, and as the population ages, this problem will continue to escalate." The budget surplus in the United States is contributed to from the taxes paid by workers in the healthcare field.  The economic system can be viewed by the "wealth loss by one group"—generally older persons—is recycled to "those who happen to need money (i.e., nurses and other healthcare workers)" and "those who profit from the healthcare system at higher margin rates."

Those who cannot afford healthcare should be supported by a combination of tax incentives and a support for basic health care coverage.  There is nothing wrong with a high proportion of funds generated in the healthcare field; it provides for those who benefit to buy computers, cars and other items!

Also, the higher profit margins of drug manufacturers and the higher costs of surgeons cannot be addressed with higher productivity as outlined in the statement "One way is to replace many of those working in the healthcare field with low-cost technology—principally electrical and computer technology." Here, open competition is the best way to ensure that the marketplace finds the best, most cost-effective solutions. 

—John Grefford, P.E.
IEEE Member
Carp, Ontario, Canada

******************

In response to your article on healthcare costs, I ask: what are the savings in hospital costs and doctor costs resulting from the health care programs? Are the savings greater than the cost of the health care programs themselves?

******************

I find it interesting that you mention "the same mistakes can’t happen twice" in posing your question to your readers.  A study of election results over the past several election cycles fails to reveal a single major election (i.e., presidential and/or congressional) that did not suffer this kind of counting irregularity in at least some precincts.  The difference in the 2000 election (i.e., the visibility) was simply due to the close election results, because the affected precincts might have had a major role on who won the overall election.

I agree completely with the idea of direct-recording electronic (DRE) systems providing a "solid audit trail," and it is precisely this that concerns me about their use.  The nicest thing about the obsolete paper ballots used today is that once you mark your ballot, you put it into a little slot and it mixes with all the other ballots cast, making it difficult to connect you and your vote.  With electronic balloting—any form, not just DREs—I am concerned that it becomes too easy to record which voter ties to which ballot.  Most likely this is just paranoia on my part, but when it comes to politicians in power being able to figure out whether or not I voted for them, I am willing to admit to paranoia.

I do feel that electronic balloting is the way of the future, but I hope that there is a much better way of guaranteeing voter privacy than we currently find in such other electronic services as e-shopping or e-banking.


—Michael J. Forbes
IEEE Student Member
Lubbock and Houston, Texas

******************

Robert Bellinger’s "Electronic Voting Technology" article (February 2001) ended with a challenge. Kindly note that the New York Section accepted that challenge and issued the following release:

Wanted! Valid Voting Machine Standards

As a result of presidential election problems and lowered voter confidence, we are committed to contribute our professional resources to help establish higher quality standards for voting machines. Our objective is to apply proven IEEE methods to develop accepted standards for recording and accurately tabulating votes.

As the largest professional, technical organization in the world, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) is recognized by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) as an accredited Standards Developing Organization. By guaranteeing consistency and conformity through open consensus, IEEE standards establish an authoritative common language to define product quality and technical criteria.

The New York Section has filed a request to the IEEE Standards Association Board to authorize an IEEE Working Group to focus on this issue. Chaired by Michael A. Miller, the proposed Working Group is accepting nominees to serve and is seeking funding to underwrite operating expenses.

While the IEEE Standards Association Board reviews our project authorization request, letters of interest, from Working Group candidates and sources of funding should be emailed to rt7t@bestweb.net. (Jalal Gohari, Chair, IEEE New York Section)

We are pleased to report that this issue has received a huge level of interest by a diverse group of eager IEEE participants.

—Ken Vought
IEEE New York Section Member

******************

Should the IEEE be active players in shaping U.S. electric power policy? Yes. As citizens, we have the right to be part of the decision-making process. As knowledgeable citizens, we have the responsibility to raise pertinent issues that might not otherwise be considered. As a volunteer-based professional organization, we have less of an ulterior agenda to push than the usual stakeholders.

—Ken Doniger
IEEE Member
Menlo Park, California

******************