Who's the boss?

After reviewing the role of management in the design analysis process, I was asked, “You mentioned that a company's management team is often the "block" for the successful implementation of COSMOSWorks. In what way? Do they not want to pay for the extra training? Do they not believe the technology's efficacy? Do they distrust their employees to use it properly?”

Management resistance is one of the most commonly cited reasons design engineers feel analysis doesn't reach its potential at many companies. There are a number of factors & they can be lumped into ‘active’ and ‘passive’ resistance.

Active resistance comes in the form of restricting use, mandating that it is only for certain personnel, visible lack of faith or direct criticism, or making unrealistic demands on the software knowing that it will fail.  Sometimes active resistance comes from refusal to pay or allow time for training, forcing under-spec'd hardware for the task, or allowing a design team to use the right product level (COSMOSWorks Professional, COSMOSWorks Advanced Professional, or COSMOSFloWorks) so that useful data is hard or impossible to come by.

Passive resistance usually comes in the forms mentioned as "sometimes" in the previous paragraph. The difference is when the manager isn't aware that these restrictions are preventing the success of the technology. A common example is the manager who approved SolidWorks Office Premium with Linear Static COSMOSWorks capabilities but is withholding an upgrade to Advanced Professional pending some demonstrated progress. However, if the primary design responses involve nonlinear materials, fatigue, buckling or vibration, the company may NEVER see success at the Premium level.

Management resistance usually stems from ignorance of the technology, thus causing improper expectations, or a prior bad experience. I met with a client years ago who told me that FEA doesn't work for his problems so he'd shelved their plans for purchasing. It turns out that he'd hired a seemingly reputable consultant who botched their analysis. I showed him where the error in the analysis was and corrected it, thus giving him good test correlation. He acknowledged the difference but still had a sour taste in his mouth. If a so-called expert couldn't get it right the first time, what chance did his part-timers have?

The fact of the matter is that a botched metal to plastic design conversion project wouldn't prevent them from trying plastic again. A less than successful attempt at automation in the plant wouldn’t condemn their product to manual assembly forever. There are plenty of industry examples showing the merit of plastic in applications previously dominated by metals and the value of production automation is self-evident…today. What managers who have been burned by FEA need to understand is that there are plenty of examples at all levels of all industries showing the value of design analysis and acknowledge they need to “get back on the bike”. I regularly tell companies that if the technology isn’t providing the benefit expected, it is usually the implementation, not the software.

Those managers who don't understand and set improper expectations need to be educated. However, they first need to know they need to be educated which is a big part of the battle. I guess education is the key to both aspects of management resistance.

If we provide this sort of education for your management, will they come?

-- Vince