March - April 2002

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

…On National Missile Defense (February - March 2002)

I have nothing against a research effort in National Missile Defense (NMD) technology, but I am against ramping it up into a full-scale implementation program. NMD is not technically feasible at this time. It is my opinion that NMD is America's version of the Maginot Line: big, complex, expensive…and ultimately useless.

— Ken Doniger
IEEE Member
Menlo Park, CA

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

The hundreds of "gigabucks" being spent for agriculture, education, health, labor, etc., is all wasted if our country falls victim to other countries' industrial resources and manpower. That almost happened during World War II. Therefore, if missile defense — or, for that matter, if any defense — might be necessary for the continued existence of the United States of America, that is insurance for which I am willing to pay.

The highest and best service that the U.S. government can provide to the nation is the preservation of the nation. All else is secondary.

— Roger L. Boyell
IEEE Senior Member
Moorestown, New Jersey

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

…On Energy Independence (February - March 2002)

Taxpayers should not shoulder the cost for seeking the holy grail of vehicle fuel "efficiency": that is, vehicle miles per gallon. The vehicle buyer can decide how much space or weight (or other factor) he or she is willing to sacrifice, for whatever fuel consumption he or she is willing to pay at prevailing fuel costs. If you want more miles, simply get a smaller vehicle.

When auto engineers can develop natural gas, electric or solar-powered cars to be better or cheaper, vehicle owners will react accordingly in the market. For any given vehicle size and performance, the engineering incentive to reduce fuel consumption already exists.

Legislation of vehicle fuel economy is an example of non-technical politicians trying to make engineers overturn physical laws.

— Roger L. Boyell
IEEE Senior Member
Moorestown, New Jersey

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

…On Too Many Hours (October - November 2001)

I started out in math, and so I heard professors recount the ravings of mathematicians as compared to engineers. Hardy was one of "the great ones" last century, and he fervently believed that humans cannot work more than four hours per day. Of course, he was not talking about toting barges and lifting bales, but neither are we.

— K. Penrose
IEEE Member
Sterling, Virginia

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

Companies always have the incentive to make employees work harder and produce more. In our profession, several factors demand that we put in longer working hours.

1. More and more, the high-tech market is an "all-or-nothing" game; you either are the best or you cannot survive. Therefore, the companies are engaged in self-destructing competitions and do anything they can think of to add value to their products.

2. The development process is more and more complex. Managers find it harder to modularize tasks so people can cooperate on a project. Instead, it is easier for managers to have one person working for longer hours.

3. Today's stock options programs produce the appearance that engineers and executives benefit equitably from success. As a result, engineers must work without regard to how they are paid, and their duties have no bounds. By owning part (though a very small part) of the company, the engineers are, in turn, owned by the company.

The long working hours take a toll on engineers' personal and family lives as well, and eventually, they have a negative impact on the company itself:

1. If the company is counting on engineers to work long hours in order to meet company goals, uncertainty arises. As a result, project management becomes less effective.

2. Productivity per hour drops significantly with longer work hours. We can all attest to increased stress, higher error rate, and longer breaks, among other things.

3. Longer working hours are not sustainable. Eventually, engineers either burn out our leave, causing disruption to development.

How can we stop this downward spiral? Here are a few things that IEEE as an organization can do:

1. Promote overtime pay. First, it is only fair. More importantly, overtime pay helps companies realize there is a price for longer work hours and makes project evaluation more realistic. By making overtime pay mandatory, companies will not be able to use mandatory overtime to mask incompetence in planning and execution.

2. Produce statistics of average working hours of various companies. Engineers can use this information when they are looking for jobs.

3. Provide educational resources to managers, so their engineering resources can be used efficiently.

4. Help more experienced engineers though continuing education so they won't have to compete with their younger colleagues on a purely work-hour basis.

— Feng Ouyang
IEEE Member
Holmdel, New Jersey