Why large organizations can't do cheap space flight

I just got this off the TechTales website
( http://www.techtales.com )
I think it is a prefect examine why most people here look at the small
organizations to get CATS done, and not the big boys who have been building
rockets for decades.

Earl Colby Pottinger

Increasing efficiency - the Management way

Quite a few years ago I was just starting my career as a Tech/Engineer and
got a job working for a large UK defence company working in the avionic
development and test department. One of my first tasks was to source a
replacement mains voltage indicator bulb used on one of the power feeds. A
typical 'newbee' task to see how I got on.

I found the bulb 10 minutes later in a component catalogue as a standard
item, cost about 50 pence - I just ring up and order it, delivery in a couple
of days, no problem? Hah.

I was introduced to 'The Procedure'. After filling in the order form and
signing it, I obtained 3 more signatures from ever increasing levels of
management within the Department. I then had to hand carry it around to the
aircraft equipment stores to 'check it is not a stores item' - it wasn't
which was not too surprising since even I knew that aircraft don't run on
mains voltages. Then I wandered over the finance department for their
signature 'to ensure our budget and cashflow was ok for the purchase'.
Finally onto the goods-in department who placed the order (on another
form) and added their signature as confirmation of order. A grand total of 7
signatures on one form.

Still fired up with the enthusasim of my new job I went to my Manger with
this tale of inefficiency to see if something could be done and to my
surprise he agreed it was a bit of a waste and came up with a solution that
would increase efficiency enormously. He instructed that instead of just
ordering one bulb, I should order 100. I left his
office with the advice that since the quantity had changed, I needed to get
the old order cancelled and raise a new order form.

Eighteen months later (having swiftly moved on) I had a task which entailed
me visiting that department. I could not resist going to where I had stored
these bulbs and counting them out....all 99 of them.

--
I make public email sent to me! Hydrogen Peroxide Rockets, OpenBeos,
SerialTransfer 3.0, RAMDISK, BoatBuilding, DIY TabletPC. What happened to
the time? http://webhome.idirect.com/~earlcp

Earl Colby Pottinger wrote:
I was introduced to 'The Procedure'. After filling in the order form and
signing it, I obtained 3 more signatures from ever increasing levels of
management within the Department. I then had to hand carry it around to the
aircraft equipment stores to 'check it is not a stores item' - it wasn't
which was not too surprising since even I knew that aircraft don't run on
mains voltages. Then I wandered over the finance department for their
signature 'to ensure our budget and cashflow was ok for the purchase'.
Finally onto the goods-in department who placed the order (on another
form) and added their signature as confirmation of order. A grand total of 7
signatures on one form.

The better organisations have a solution to much of this kind of
situation. The departments are given some small discretionary budget,
that needs only the department manager to sign off on. That way you
avoid the issues of spending multiple times the cost of the item to buy
the item.

The other trick is to streamline the purchase mechanism; and then do
spot checks at significantly frequent intervals; otherwise the
organisation frequently spends $10 to save $0.50.

There are also some big issues with headcount in many organisations. The
bigger the headcount is, the more important the manager seems to be.
Therefore the manager needs to grow their empire as much as possible,
even without improvement in the overall productivity in line with the
headcount. In fact, in many cases, reducing the headcount often improves
productivity due to communication costs going as N^2 where N is the
number of people.

Ian Woollard wrote in message ...
Earl Colby Pottinger wrote:
I was introduced to 'The Procedure'. After filling in the order form and
signing it, I obtained 3 more signatures from ever increasing levels of
management within the Department. I then had to hand carry it around to the
aircraft equipment stores to 'check it is not a stores item' - it wasn't
which was not too surprising since even I knew that aircraft don't run on
mains voltages. Then I wandered over the finance department for their
signature 'to ensure our budget and cashflow was ok for the purchase'.
Finally onto the goods-in department who placed the order (on another
form) and added their signature as confirmation of order. A grand total of 7
signatures on one form.

The better organisations have a solution to much of this kind of
situation. The departments are given some small discretionary budget,
that needs only the department manager to sign off on. That way you
avoid the issues of spending multiple times the cost of the item to buy
the item.

Even one manager's "signature" is a waste of time. The techie should
just order the part off the catalogues over the intranet, where
special prices are negotiated. Once ordered, no further human
involvement is required for admin.

I think things are better than they were, but there's still a long way
to go.


The other trick is to streamline the purchase mechanism; and then do
spot checks at significantly frequent intervals; otherwise the
organisation frequently spends $10 to save $0.50.

There are also some big issues with headcount in many organisations. The
bigger the headcount is, the more important the manager seems to be.
Therefore the manager needs to grow their empire as much as possible,
even without improvement in the overall productivity in line with the
headcount. In fact, in many cases, reducing the headcount often improves
productivity due to communication costs going as N^2 where N is the
number of people.

A problem excacberated by some pay-setting formulae which reward
managers for having more headcount.

Earl Colby Pottinger wrote in message ...
I just got this off the TechTales website
( http://www.techtales.com )
I think it is a prefect examine why most people here look at the small
organizations to get CATS done, and not the big boys who have been building
rockets for decades.

Earl Colby Pottinger

Increasing efficiency - the Management way

Quite a few years ago I was just starting my career as a Tech/Engineer and
got a job working for a large UK defence company working in the avionic
development and test department. One of my first tasks was to source a
replacement mains voltage indicator bulb used on one of the power feeds. A
typical 'newbee' task to see how I got on.

I found the bulb 10 minutes later in a component catalogue as a standard
item, cost about 50 pence - I just ring up and order it, delivery in a couple
of days, no problem? Hah.

I was introduced to 'The Procedure'. After filling in the order form and
signing it, I obtained 3 more signatures from ever increasing levels of
management within the Department. I then had to hand carry it around to the
aircraft equipment stores to 'check it is not a stores item' - it wasn't
which was not too surprising since even I knew that aircraft don't run on
mains voltages. Then I wandered over the finance department for their
signature 'to ensure our budget and cashflow was ok for the purchase'.
Finally onto the goods-in department who placed the order (on another
form) and added their signature as confirmation of order. A grand total of 7
signatures on one form.

Oh well. How many managers does it take to
change a light bulb?

I tried to change this type of thing at North American
--way back when it was still North American--by
suggesting autonomous project groups that would have
a sacred checkbook that could be spent only by the
Project Engineer anywhere in the organization or out.
The Project Engineer would be responsible and would
have the authority to get the job done in the best way
possible.

Sensible? Sure. Possible? You have to be kidding.
I came to the conclusion that the only way to reach all
that talent efficiently was to quit, get an independent
pot of money, and then approach the big company as a
customer. But then, there is even more talent in the
vendors that serve the big companies--so why bother?

If the government followed the findings of the 1973
Procurement Commission and the subsequent OMB order,
OMB A-109, then there would be a lot more exploratory
studies that would be wide open to small businesses as
well as large business--and no total package procurements.
If the government would only follow OMB A-109, then the
government would discover how much cheaper things could
be with meaningful competition. But maybe the government
doesn't really want to change things.

Incidentally, I was struck by the similarity of British
and U.S. practices in this regard--and how little things
change with time when I read the late Neville Shute's
SLIDE RULE.

Best regards,
Len (Cormier)
PanAero, Inc and Third Millennium Aerospace, Inc.
( http://www.tour2space.com )

Still fired up with the enthusasim of my new job I went to my Manger with
this tale of inefficiency to see if something could be done and to my
surprise he agreed it was a bit of a waste and came up with a solution that
would increase efficiency enormously. He instructed that instead of just
ordering one bulb, I should order 100. I left his
office with the advice that since the quantity had changed, I needed to get
the old order cancelled and raise a new order form.

Eighteen months later (having swiftly moved on) I had a task which entailed
me visiting that department. I could not resist going to where I had stored
these bulbs and counting them out....all 99 of them.