“Why investment bankers resist change & 4 ways to change their minds”

The design engineers cater to corporates and manufacturing firms which have a chain of other departments like production, service, sales, marketing, purchase & vendor development, logistics and supply chain etc.Every section individually have their “set” of “algorithms” already planned to work on day-to-day basis. You really cannot bring out a product (one fine morning) that is whole lot newer and feature-wise most distinct than its predecessor as it will generate problems in these sections which generates kind of “inertia”. Lot of loss can be a consequence of all this.

On the other hand, engineers who play the role of scientists/innovators do not cater to all such major chains said above and can really jump around different orthogonal technologies to bring out newer stuff.

But that is the dark side of internet and we have to live up with it: anyone can post any kind of trash he wants ….

No, it’s not about old-timers. It’s about messing up what works, at great risk and unnecessary cost, because someone just thinks change is good, period. I hope THAT era is coming to an end.

Let’s see if I can give you a sense of what I mean: “Why not tint your windshield red? Just do it, don’t resist. I expect compliance. It’s a change and change is good. How do you know until you try? Now we’re going to re-do all our files so the papers fit upright instead of sideways. New cabinets will be here Monday. Europe uses higher voltage – let’s rewire the plant for 205. We’ll do it in three phases. Gee, I’m getting a lot of resistance from you – maybe you need to have some training in teamwork.”

I hope you never encounter that, but it does explain why even today there are good reasons to resist some change.

When dictated from outside, by someone who is not an authority but is “in authority,” the change should at least be discussed before implementation. If the engineers were any good, they have probably already considered the alternatives and have good reasons for choosing the current system. While the situation could possibly be improved, the sunk cost of the engineers’ decision process and all the tooling/documentation/training/etc. are not trivial, nor are the risk/evaluation/rework/training required to implement the change. In such discussions, big mistakes can be avoided and synergistic solutions can be realized. This is what engineers do – and to impose change without at least allowing them to debate the merits shows contempt.

If the engineers are invited into the change discussion they will certainly explain and defend the logic of their work (they’d better be able to) and point to the risks and costs of re-doing it all. That doesn’t make them stubborn: If they can see the merits they will usually embrace the change. The truly stubborn are those who say “change good – book say so,” then stereotype engineers as resistant without even listening to what they’ve paid for, and then tell the engineers that there’s no bonus this year because of “unexpected cost overruns.”

Another frustration is that engineers are frequently paid a salary but expected to work overtime, and told that maintaining currency is to be done on their remaining personal time. If we spend our weekends learning software and writing code, then someone from IT takes it off our machines without warning, well, it’s just robbery.

It all comes down to respect within the company culture. A collegial culture creates a successful company.

I dare say that some engineers might be resistant to some changes, especially those that may change the fundamental nature of their jobs, and especially as they get nearer retirement.

But I have known hundreds of engineers in my life, and I can tell you that nearly all of them recognize change to be essential.
- the software changes
- the operating systems change
- the suppliers change
- the components change because the suppliers have changed
- the co-workers change because some retire, some leave, new ones are hired
- the organization changes because some functions are eliminated
- the products change because some product lines are eliminated and new ones launched

I could go on with this literally all day. To make the blanket statement “engineers resist change” given that everything is changing around them is pretty much the same as saying “change” doesn’t mean what you think it means.

Don’t call engineer those who received their certification by mistake or because the school system has big problems.

Real engineers will too try to resist change sometimes, when they were left out of the evaluation process choosing the new technology. They sometimes know that in advance that this new technology is a dead end, they would help you managers choosing the right one if you would sometimes ask them.

Anyone that believes engineers are not the innovators and resist change probably believes that the new economy will be saved by the new green technology – “solar panels and windmills are the futre”. NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS ARE THE FUTURE. A return to an insustrialized automated economy with a few winmills thrown in is the future.

If you think engineers resist change, I bet you believe electricity is generated in the socket – just like the current administration.