[AT] Gas Can Rant

[Dennis Johnson]

I am almost 100% positive that the problem was managers defining the task in some stupid way to the engineers designing it. I am sure that the task was to find a way to limit fuming while the can was setting, and make it automatic where humans did not have to do anything to it. I am equally sure that ease of normal use of the can was NOT part of the requirements. If there was any use requirement it was to some fixed opening that did not move like a weed eater fuel tank. May have been given some city dweller that never used a weed eater, or filled a mower fuel tank.
The engineers would be given bonuses if they strictly followed the stupid written tasks, and would loose the bonus and be rated low performers if they thought "outside of the box". What would you do??
I have seen this in industry many times to some lesser extent. (42 + years as engineer) Trying to go back and reassess or re-define the problem normally gets lost in time constraints or deadlines. Some companies are starting to allow problem reassessment, but it is a painful process. Adding politicians and bureaucrats to the mix just makes things worse. 

Dennis


Sent from my iPad