From the beginning a powerful suggestion is at lay that technology be a very profitable line of work. There is a severe imbalance in that profit outweighs product. There is a very strong push to get products into the market. In more cases than not these products are not finished. Here the context of the word "finished" must be expanded upon. Classically, we tend to think that a finished product is in itself complete. This expansion requires particular attention be applied to the word "complete". Complete, lacking nothing. It can be argued that a complete product would have passed QC, QA before making it to the market. Well products certainly do not meet these classic definitions today. Notice that I refer to these definitions as "classic". This is because the industry has found clever ways of redefining words for the sake of profit. In order to redefine a word we must first have the means to do so. Lets put this idea to the side for the time being as we will come back to it later. I will shift to responsibility now.
Most of us have an uncanny sense of responsibility. Perhaps best found in a parking lot of many cars. If you were to open up your car door and damage the neighboring car there is an uncanny sense of responsibility. The method of which we as individuals address this is very different from the industry. We as individuals have learned to use euphemisms to lesson the feeling of responsibility. We call this an accident. Though most of us have a decent set of morals and thus we neglect our euphemism and tend to take direct responsibility.The industry has also learned to use euphemisms to shift the point of responsibility. The difference here is that the industry as an entity does not have morals. The industry will undergo a great deal to dodge responsibility. An example of this can be found in the use of the word contention. Contention is now used to describe yet another euphemism which is violation. Now we must consider what violation has been used to replace. Further studies here reveal the word illegal. Being the social beings we are I should hope we all understand the word illegal. With this concept in mind I continue with my thoughts on the clever use of words for profit.
At this point I need to use these concepts in an example. So let us assume that the industry has produced a product and this product has been used by manufacturers in various other products. Not long after the product reaches the market a serious problem is found with reliability.The industry finds the problem to be isolated in interface of the CPU block and the static ram block. Further study shows that there is an illegal hold time on the data bus during a data read cycle. The industry succeeded in finding the problem but this problem creates a larger problem. The problem lies deep inside a piece of silicon wafer. The only way to correct this problem is issue a silicon revision and start another batch of wafers. Now the industry has two problems. The first and foremost problem being that they have 1.000,000 devices that are junk. The second problem is that they have 1,000,000 junk wafers which must make a profit if the industry is to show profit. At some point a decision is made to market the product anyway. A rather clever product errata sheet is published which explains the known problems of the product. The errata sheet states that under very specific conditions the device may experience bus contention and may enter an undefined operating mode.
In order to sell all these junk products the industry corrects the internal budgets and applies focus to marketing and special interest groups. The media sells the hype from the printing press through the radio. Special interest groups have ventured interests and manipulate standard drafts to ensure the product be used in all new products.
We as a people have come to use euphemisms everywhere. People are now "consumers". After all it is easier to come to terms with: 1,000,000 consumers bought junk rather than 1,000,000 people bought junk. The clever people in risk analysis have learned that a marginal percentage of these people will be upset that the product does not function properly. They have also learned that even a smaller percentage of these people will complain. Depending on the budget and profit margins there may be yet another probability understanding that given percentage of these people who are complaining will receive product replacement or reimbursement. The elaboration still continues in that demographics dictate who will receive services.
It is not to be suggested that this corruption is intentional in the fundamental use. I believe this to be a direct attribute of greed. It is well known that our industry can produce very reliable products that yield respectful profits. Another problem of greed starts earlier in our lives. It is commonly suggested that we find a line of work that will make us rich. This may be the majority contributor to the problems in the industry. We have people who hold engineering titles but are not engineers. We have people who develop software but are not programmers. The problem continues until one finds a true engineer, a true programmer. I can not put a concise definition on the "true" aspect of any profession. Do not confuse this with a common misconception that there is no difference. This is the likely argument of the para-type. The difference is in that of the uncanny sense. A member of the true nature will exhibit deep passion, motivation, and interest in their line of work. This will be quite evident as it saturates all who come in contact with the individual. Those of the par-type will be rather dull.
In final analysis we can attribute quite a few problems to the creators of technology who are not interested in that technology. This really is a shame since the ultimate price is paid by the people who use the technology. Everyone has paid this price at one time or another. Whether by some miniscule inconvenience or near catastrophe. The problems can be greatly reduced by simply doing what you enjoy, assuming adequate responsibility, and avoiding greed.
Ofcourse this line of reasoning does not fit well with current economic practices. Maybe it is time things change.
No comments:
Post a Comment