标签: Industry

Technology continually changes, forcing managers at all companies to evaluate their present market position. New approaches that yield cheaper and more powerful solutions for customers that are might erode a company's product offerings. These may come from established companies or from start-ups.   The future is, however, always murky. We never know which technology to put resources behind to expand a company’s product line. "Cannibalizing your product before someone else does" is the watchword that must drive any successful transition. Sounds good, but why do so many companies fail at it?   Industry leaders usually opt for doing things the same way with subtle changes. In fact, most try to improve on cost to meet corporate profitability goals. The whole enterprise is structured to deliver a quality product at the lowest achievable cost. Any changes (improvements?) are welcomed only if they reduce cost.     Certainly, these companies employ a lot of smart people who know that nothing lasts forever. But they also know that there are plenty of wild, crazy ideas out there and it will take a lot of understanding to get managers to place bets against something they know already works.   Every industry has market leaders who look over their shoulders at who might upset their vaulted position. For example, the automobile industry has grown to its stature over the last 100 years. The internal combustion engine has been improved upon over that time to deliver a reliable, good experience. But is that about to change? Is technology at the point that it can deliver a lower cost, better experience with electric vehicles? If you were at GM or Ford, how would you handle this?   It takes a remarkable company with extraordinary leadership to shift to a newer technology. Actually, the automobile manufacturers are experimenting with many new technologies, especially electric. But is it a waste of money?   As the late great Steve Jobs said in one of his memorable lines, "You can't connect the dots looking forward; you can only connect them looking backward. So you have to trust that the dots will somehow connect in your future. You have to trust in something — your gut, destiny, life, karma, whatever. This approach has never let me down, and it has made all the difference in my life."   We've seen many changes in the measurement field, too. The fast rise of consumer products has demanded a shift to software platforms and modular solutions. The older solutions were box functions, connected by IEEE-488 (GPIB) communications, driving measurement systems. New systems are driven by software and hardware that can implement the desired functions.   Test systems are being drawn up with new architectures than those developed just a few years ago. Certainly, USB and Ethernet play a role, but even wider choices using embedded approaches running Linux are being used to give real time performance data, resulting in faster testing throughput.   Today’s consumer products such as cell phones, tablets, and action cameras, etc. are being subjected to usage extremes of temperature and vibration that demand new approaches. Modular devices that directly handle sensor data can be rapidly employed to give extensive measurement data that older approaches can't.   The continuing fascination of consumers with these new personal devices is changing the supply chain, as well as the testing of these products. They demand that their devices work despite the “torture” they’re subjected to: dropping them, falling in water, sitting on them, and the ultimate…having their children entertained with them.   No one can know for sure what changes will occur next. We only know after they occur. But, we must let our intuition and good sense must lead us.   Fred Molinari President CEO Data Translation

By nature, most engineers are introverts. Software engineering is often on the list of “best careers” for introverts, with counselors supporting this recommendation with statements like, “Spending time alone with a computer could be a dream come true for any introverted techie.” And yet, these are the same people who become entrepreneurs and grow into leaders in their companies and their industries.   Of course, not every leader from our industry has had to overcome those personality traits. Most of us have been awed by the charisma of Steve Jobs and the persuasion of Jeff Bezos.   For the majority of the “left-brained” crowd with a technical background, one of the hardest parts of being a leader of a technology startup is moving away from the natural tendency to be introspective. Let me be upfront: No CEO has been successful without stepping out of his or her comfort zone.   As the founder, an entrepreneurial engineer will learn quickly that he or she is the chief sales executive. It’s up to him or her to sell and promote the company ceaselessly. That means meeting with, and selling to, potential investors, customers, employees, and partners. The company leader is expected to be the chief promoter eating, drinking, sleeping the messaging, positioning, and product story and delivering it to anyone who will listen 24/7.   The first “sales” test comes early for the entrepreneur when he or she raises money from venture capitalists. Those skills get honed quickly. Any entrepreneur who thinks this can be delegated is mistaken.   The challenge, then, is to learn to be outgoing, and it is something anyone can learn to do.   As a young engineer, I had a goal to move from engineering into marketing as a stepping-stone to management roles. I had a solid understanding of technology and knew I could learn the tenets of good marketing, but was concerned that I was a bit too reserved to be a good marketing manager. I was lucky enough to snag an interview with a legendary marketing executive, Bruce Bourbon. I shared with him my concern, and he said that I could learn to be more outgoing -- and I did.   On a much larger stage, we have witnessed the maturation of Mark Zuckerberg from an insecure engineer who handed out the infamous “I’m CEO, B****” business card to the respected leader of a publicly traded company.   Of course, this process takes time, as do many things, because the natural tendency is to stay within the comfort zone. Fortunately, as engineers, we are taught to unravel challenges, and this is yet another challenge.   The first step for a fledgling leader would be to become a better networker and to get more comfortable. Starting slowly is the best course of action. My advice is to set a small goal -- say, introduce yourself to five people you don’t know. Second, have a set of five questions or so to ask people you meet that can range from asking what they do to what keeps them up at night.   The final bit of advice is to appear confident and self-assured. Remember that, as the founder of a company, you have some bragging rights, and you can shine a new light on the challenges faced by your peer CEOs, even if they are a lot more experienced and running much larger companies.   Once the fear of networking has been overcome, it’s remarkable to note how informative industry events can be. All of a sudden, the new leader will be able to map where the company’s technology fits within the ecosystem. Other companies’ strengths and weakness could become apparent from discussions over drinks and canapés. In some cases, it may force a company to do a pivot and retool a product. Finding the product niche is important and will only happen by networking with potential customers and partners.   Whether we’re grooming ourselves to be a leader or not, an important point for each of us is to find our personal style, which means learning to play to our strengths. In some cases, the relaxed hoodie and jeans look fits like a mantle, while others of us follow a Wall Street appearance. All kinds can be successful. Choosing the style that’s true to who we are and sticking with it will help make people believe in us.   Michel Courtoy is a former design engineer and EDA executive who sits on the board of directors at Breker Verification Systems.

Most engineers are inherently introverts. Software engineering is often on the list of “best careers” for introverts, with counselors supporting this recommendation with statements like, “Spending time alone with a computer could be a dream come true for any introverted techie.” And yet, these are the same people who become entrepreneurs and grow into leaders in their companies and their industries.   Of course, not every leader from our industry has had to overcome those personality traits. Most of us have been awed by the charisma of Steve Jobs and the persuasion of Jeff Bezos.   For the majority of the “left-brained” crowd with a technical background, one of the hardest parts of being a leader of a technology startup is moving away from the natural tendency to be introspective. Let me be upfront: No CEO has been successful without stepping out of his or her comfort zone.   As the founder, an entrepreneurial engineer will learn quickly that he or she is the chief sales executive. It’s up to him or her to sell and promote the company ceaselessly. That means meeting with, and selling to, potential investors, customers, employees, and partners. The company leader is expected to be the chief promoter eating, drinking, sleeping the messaging, positioning, and product story and delivering it to anyone who will listen 24/7.   The first “sales” test comes early for the entrepreneur when he or she raises money from venture capitalists. Those skills get honed quickly. Any entrepreneur who thinks this can be delegated is mistaken.   The challenge, then, is to learn to be outgoing, and it is something anyone can learn to do.   As a young engineer, I had a goal to move from engineering into marketing as a stepping-stone to management roles. I had a solid understanding of technology and knew I could learn the tenets of good marketing, but was concerned that I was a bit too reserved to be a good marketing manager. I was lucky enough to snag an interview with a legendary marketing executive, Bruce Bourbon. I shared with him my concern, and he said that I could learn to be more outgoing -- and I did.   On a much larger stage, we have witnessed the maturation of Mark Zuckerberg from an insecure engineer who handed out the infamous “I’m CEO, B****” business card to the respected leader of a publicly traded company.   Of course, this process takes time, as do many things, because the natural tendency is to stay within the comfort zone. Fortunately, as engineers, we are taught to unravel challenges, and this is yet another challenge.   The first step for a fledgling leader would be to become a better networker and to get more comfortable. Starting slowly is the best course of action. My advice is to set a small goal -- say, introduce yourself to five people you don’t know. Second, have a set of five questions or so to ask people you meet that can range from asking what they do to what keeps them up at night.   The final bit of advice is to appear confident and self-assured. Remember that, as the founder of a company, you have some bragging rights, and you can shine a new light on the challenges faced by your peer CEOs, even if they are a lot more experienced and running much larger companies.   Once the fear of networking has been overcome, it’s remarkable to note how informative industry events can be. All of a sudden, the new leader will be able to map where the company’s technology fits within the ecosystem. Other companies’ strengths and weakness could become apparent from discussions over drinks and canapés. In some cases, it may force a company to do a pivot and retool a product. Finding the product niche is important and will only happen by networking with potential customers and partners.   Whether we’re grooming ourselves to be a leader or not, an important point for each of us is to find our personal style, which means learning to play to our strengths. In some cases, the relaxed hoodie and jeans look fits like a mantle, while others of us follow a Wall Street appearance. All kinds can be successful. Choosing the style that’s true to who we are and sticking with it will help make people believe in us.   Michel Courtoy is a former design engineer and EDA executive who sits on the board of directors at Breker Verification Systems.

I was born into a family of educators, and I married into a family of educators. For some time, it seemed as though my professional life was headed in a different direction. I worked in the automation industry as a system integrator. Eventually, however, like in The Godfather: Part III , "Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in." I became a professor, and now I find myself running a company focused on educational content and technology. Having one foot in the teaching world and the other foot in industry has given me a unique perspective on engineering education. Strangely enough, the strongest feeling that I have about engineering education comes neither from my years as a student nor from my years as a professor, but from my years working on (and under) machines. For years, as a "software guy," I worked squarely between electrical engineers and electricians or between mechanical engineers and toolmakers. I often observed problems arise between young engineers and the seasoned tradesmen and women. "The Wall" was a literal thing—a real divide between carpeting, reclining desk chairs and workstations, and cement floors, stools, and tools.   Lab and project work is just as important as academics. Engineers would throw designs over "The Wall," and men and women would build those things, wire them up, and make them work. That was the plan, but I don't know how often I heard, "This can't be built" or "This can't ever be taken apart" or "That'll never work." It became clear to me that good engineers are receptive to feedback, and the best ones are proactive enough to get input before stamping a drawing. Years later, when I began teaching future engineers, and still later, when I began employing engineers as a business owner, this still rang true. So how does an employer encourage this sort of collaboration and flexibility? A number of engineering students are now taking part in things like robotic competitions and alternative energy vehicle competitions. Most engineering programs have senior projects. As an employer, I view those activities as more important than mere grade point averages. When interviewing or working with interns or new graduates, I ask things such as: * What have you built? * What have you fixed? * Have you ever hurt yourself in the shop? (I'm not sure what the right answer is, but I like to ask.) * What's your favourite machine or tool to work on? And what can engineering educators do to foster these qualities in their students? * Some schools have fantastic internship or co-operative education programs. I think all schools should. * Most schools have capstone or senior project courses. I think all of them should, and the students should really be required to make something from scratch. * Students should consistently be inspired by seeing real results of real projects that relate to their studies. I think as engineers, we should give back by showing off our cool work. Educators should be asking us to do this. I talk to many engineering educators about their challenges. Student engagement is always on top on the list. I think this is relatively easy to solve by talking about "The Wall" between theory and practice and then showing them how to break it down. Ben Zimmer is the president of Enable Training and Consulting.  

I just got an email from a student whom we shall call Razi (because that's his name). This fine fellow is currently studying computer science at the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT) in Germany. Razi is in the process of writing his Master's thesis on the topic of soft errors in memories. His email started by saying, "Hi Max, I am a big fan of your articles." Well, what can I say? Razi is obviously a very discerning, discriminating, and perceptive young man. It seems that it's coming close to the time when Razi has to decide whether to remain in academia or to move into industry, and he wondered if I had any suggestions to help him make up his mind. Now, I should point out that when we say "remain in academia," we aren't talking about him becoming a lecturer or anything like that—what we mean is staying on to take a PhD and then coming out to work in industry. As a starting point, I asked Razi to come up with a "Pros and Cons" table, to which he responded as follows:   Pros and Cons of moving into industry vs. staying in academia. Well, that does sum things up, but—to be honest—I'm really not sure what to advise. On the one hand, I would love to have a PhD (or even a Master's degree); quite apart from any other consideration that it would make my dear old mom very proud. On the other hand, attaining these qualifications takes a lot of time and effort. On my part, as soon as I got my BSc I was eager to move into industry and start working on computers and robots and spaceships and... well, everything, really. Taking the industry path has worked well for me, not the least that my name is known around the world (my wife knows it in America and my mom knows it in England). Also, since I didn't take the Master's and PhD route, I'm really not qualified (pun intended) to waffle on about that option. Personally, I think everyone is different and you have to follow your heart (and wallet) with regard to this sort of thing. What do you think? What advice would you give to Razi?