Fun with bureaucracy, looking for advice.

Post Reply New Topic

Hello all. Warning: this is a long post; best get a snack now if you plan to read it

I already posted the start of my career here:

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt99946.html

It is an interesting post (well at least to me) but if you don’t want to read it, allow me to summarize.

I graduated from college a bit over a year ago with a degree in mechanical engineering. I got a 3.7 GPA (3.9 without English classes) and my work was featured at both the Detroit Auto Show, and in Popular Science magazine. I know am a good engineer. I doubt I am the best engineer ever, but I do know that I am very good at designing, and drafting mechanical components. I have a very extensive understanding of the underlying physics, and a good ability to think in 3D and see solutions. I was the smartest student (to the best of my knowledge) in all the engineering classes I took, and I always took the role of lead designer in group projects because it was fairly obvious to everybody that I really knew what I was doing.

I don’t want to sound arrogant, but the point that I am trying to make is that I have good skills in engineering, and my record shows that. Well, last November I got a job offer, and started work at an aircraft modification center down in Texas. We take old 747s, C130s, etc, and replace old engines, upgrade hardware, and retrofit aircraft with new stuff. To give you an idea, my company did the SOFIA project:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SOFIA

I was told that my job would be working on designing aircraft modifications, and I was more than happy at that prospect. I love aircraft, specifically the mechanics of them, and this seemed like a very good job. Overall the job started out decently. My first project was to design the molds for fiberglass skin panels. Not the most exciting job, but it was a decent start into the engineering process, and good practice to learn how the systems work at the company. The problem is that after a month, I quickly ran out of engineering work to do. My boss explained to me that the engineering jobs I had been hired to do were cancelled because expected contracts didn’t come in. It might be due to the economy, but whatever the reason, there was more engineers then work, so in order to keep me employed, they transferred me to other jobs. I was told this was just temporary until more contracts came in and then I could start working on actual engineering tasks.

And now we come to today’s situation:

The tasks I was given slowly got worse, and worse, and worse. I now work on updating old engineering drawings to new company formats. To explain that, basically my job is to take an old drawing, replicate the pieces on a CAD program (draft them up) and then make the drawing again, with our new software using our current design standards. Of course the problem is that it isn’t as easy as it sounds. For starters, nobody actually explains what they want in the new drawing. You can’t copy the old drawing directly because that was done to the previous design standards, you have to update it. But nobody can give me a straight answer as to what to update it to. You are just supposed to figure it out. You get some vague information like: here is the drawing number, make it consistent with our current standards, and that’s about it.

The problem is that trying to update these drawings is an exercise in inefficient bureaucracy. Often times, the parts listed in this drawing aren’t available to measure, and most parts don’t have complete detail drawings, and the few drawings you do have are often times mutually exclusive. This requires you to dive through about a dozen hoops checking different databases, asking people if they know where to look, and hitting a lot of dead ends. I could go on for hours about this process, but the basic theme is that updating a drawing requires about 1 hour of drafting work, and roughly 2-3 days of clerical work checking databases, fighting the bureaucracy for info, etc.

Once the drawing is complete, you then have to submit it for peer review. The idea makes sense to me, but the problem is that people like to provide ‘input’. Basically, if people just sign off on the drawing, then they can only charge 5 minutes to the task. But if they mark it up with a bunch of notes like ‘rotate this view 10 degrees’ or ‘move this dimension to the left half an inch’ etc. they can charge a lot more time ‘checking your drawing’. This encourages people to reject your drawing, and suggest changes to it multiple times because it helps fill up their time card. The problem is also compounded by the fact that I have no idea what in the world they want my drawing to look like because they never explained anything to me. So invariably my drawings get rejected back to me for rework several times before they get approved. I have tried pointing out the problems with this setup multiple times, and explaining how things could happen more quickly and efficiently if things were explained properly up front, and redundant and useless steps were removed. But so far, I haven’t had any luck in changing the way things are done.

Overall, a single drawing may only require an hour of drafting work, and 30 hours of fighting the bureaucracy, making changes, resubmitting, making more changes, etc. And of course after the drawing has been back and forth for review a dozen times it can take 6 weeks from start to completion. Now this annoys me greatly. I hate dealing with the bureaucracy, and doing clerical work. I am an engineer, and that is where my skills lie. I didn’t take this job with the intention of wasting the vast majority of my time waiting and filling out paperwork. But, I just kept telling myself that this was only a temporary thing until engineering work needed to be done, and then I could transfer back.

Well, here is the problem, and the reason why I am making this post. Today was my bi-annual review day. My boss gave me a list of problems that I needed to work on. The list included things like:
- questioning the appropriateness of work (which is not conducive to a team environment, and bordering on insubordination)
- poor quality of work
- low quantity of work produced
- failing to complete tasks in a timely manner

I had no idea what this was referring to so I asked for clarification. Apparently, when I suggested that things be done differently, and more efficiently, it was regarded as questioning the company policies, and bordering on insubordination.
My ‘poor quality of work’ refers to the fact that my drawings get rejected several times. This is something I can’t do anything about because people won’t tell me how they want the drawings to look until after I submit them and they get rejected. And the peer review team benefits from rejecting my drawings.
My low quantity of work refers to the fact that it takes me such a long time to do the drawing, which I cannot fix. The only thing I can control is how long it takes me to do the drafting. And whether I do it in 30 minutes or 2 hours really doesn’t matter. The vast majority of the time I spend is fighting the bureaucracy, and I have no control over how long that takes.
And of course since it takes 6 weeks to get a drawing completed due to the bureaucracy, I still have things assigned to me a month ago that aren’t done yet, which is why I was written up for failing to complete tasks in a timely manner.
Basically, I am getting written up for being slow and bad at my job and there isn’t much I can do about it. Any attempt to change the way things work in an effort to improve my productivity is written up as insubordination.

Realizing that I am never going to get a good report if I keep working on updating drawings, I asked my boss when we will be getting new contracts so I can transfer to design work. My boss informed me that there is indeed design work that needs to be done. This was great news to me because that is what I got hired to do. But then my boss informed me that management is hesitant to put me on design work when I got such a poor review on a simple task like document updating. He told me though that if I improve my work on the drawings and prove my productivity, that they would reconsider transferring me back.

So, that’s basically where I am now. I am stuck in a job where I can’t do anything well because of the massive amount of bureaucracy, and I am getting blamed for poor results. And even though I have a high aptitude for design work, I am not allowed to do it because I have this poor review on my record. In order to get anything done in this bureaucracy, you need to have connections, and I just don’t have connections. Even if I were to somehow manage to get into design work, there is still a large amount of bureaucracy there. So it’s not as though the problem can be solved very easily.

I think that at this point I have to accept that I am not going to have a productive career with this company. It is just too full of bureaucracy, and pointless standards, and all the other problems that come from being a large company funded by government money. I think it’s a good idea for me to look elsewhere for a job. The problem becomes how do I do this?

When I signed up for the company, I got a 5000$ relocation bonus with the stipulation that if I quit, or get fired for gross incompetence within a year, I have to repay it. If I just quit my job, then I don’t get any unemployment payments, and I also have to repay the 5 grand. I also have no job to go to. Furthermore, how do you explain in a future interview that you quit your job because you got a poor performance review after only 8 months?

Option 2 is to try searching for a new job while still working at my current one. This has benefits because it less risky financially, but how do you explain to a potential employer why you want to leave your current job? Looking for a new job while you still have work just seems to me a sign that you don’t take your job seriously, and you’re willing to abandon the company at any time.

Option 3 is to try and get laid off. If I can manage that then I get to keep my 5 grand, and still get unemployment. It is also easy to explain at a future interview. I can honestly say that there were just too many engineers and not enough work, and so I got downsized. This would be the best solution, but how do I get my company to lay me off? The only thing I can think of is to let my work slip until it is very poor, but at that point, I would probably get fired for gross incompetence, which is worse then quitting.

So, that is my dilemma. What would you do in this situation?

It sounds like a typical engineer's life. We like to design and be innovative, but big companies and their government sponsors like bureaucracy. One thing you might want to do is document what you have told us here. Keep track of names, dates, etc. so that if you are fired, the company will have a much harder time of stiffing you out of your money. Remeber that you were hired as an engineer and not a secretary, so don't beat up yourself when for whatever reason they do not like your work.

When you receive an assignment, make a copy of the original drawing as well as the retrofitted one. Also make a copy of your instructions , who gave them to you, and who rejected your work. In other words, make notes of who what when where, and why. That way, you can back up your story when and if you are fired. You can also have this information on hand when seeking clarification of any further performance review.

I see more and more physical and software engineering jobs drift from doing actual designs and coming up with new products to complying with bureaucratic standards, business processes, and whatever they want to call it. In other words, American governments and American companies are slowly becoming soviet style bureaucracies. It is the main reason why I have decided to not persue engineering and technology careers any more. Since you have a 4 year degree and published work, don't feel that the United States is your only option when it comes to work. That college degree gives you the opportunity to look at industries in other countries as well. Unless things change drastically here in the United States, I don't see this rat ship remaining afloat for very much longer.

I work as a social scientist for the federal government. Or, should I say, I used to be a social scientist. Now, they're trying to turn me into a programming automaton. The last thing that they want is ideas, in spite of their rhetoric. My agency's mission statement talks about innovation, but I am slammed when I innovate in anything but writing code. It's not socially acceptable to dissent from the conventional wisdom, even when you can prove it wrong. My area also hires social scientists to program and managers refuse to understand that good programmers are born and not made. It's sort of like the ASD vs. NT distinction: it's inborn and you can't make it go away. You can only try to boost the deficits. Since NTs rule, their deficits, by definition, are not deficits and it's the rest of us who have to accommodate to them.

@Tracker

My advice is to with Option 2 and focus, if you can, on companies that are not Federal contractors. The danger in the interviews is being too honest. You say something about wanting a new challenge, doing something different, moving to another part of the country or world, etc. Just don't badmouth your company. If the interviewer happens to be familiar with your company and its goings-on, then you can relax. You can also point to your work. Somebody help out here if the interviewer thinks it's dated and may suspect that you've slipped.

Ok, first, know that I know pretty much nothing about getting and keeping jobs, particularly skilled ones.
Would a new potential employer be completely put off it you explained that you're looking for a new job because at your current job you are not receiving clear instructions, and that while you're an excellent engineer, you're less skilled at interpreting incredibly vague instructions? Wouldn't that only bother employers who intended to give you vague instructions as to what your job was to be? I mean, it wouldn't do much good to find another job that was the same as the job that you're having trouble with now, would it? The ideal situation would be to find a company who needs somebody who is very good at the things that you are very good at.
Sorry if I've made an idiot of myself in this post..

No, that isnt bad advice maggiedoll.

It doesnt make any sense for me to quit my current company and start work at another company with the exact same problem. If I am honest about why I am quitting (aversion to bureaucracy) then it might be like a litmus test. Companies with a lot of bureaucracy wouldnt hire me, which is what I want. But companies who try to keep the bureaucracy low would understand my reason for quitting, and think of it as a good thing because it proves I try to avoid wasting time.

I don't like to give advice because I don't want to feel responsible for negative consequences if I'm wrong (and I would feel responsible). However, I've learned to offer solutions to problems at the same time as I draw attention to them. I'd create a feedback document, designed to accommodate the types of feedback you've been getting, and (after proposing it for authorisation if your organisation's bureaucratic structure requires that), present each set of drawings to the peer reviewers with the document attached. It will show that you're proactive, it will help to formalise the feedback, and it might help to show if feedback from some quarters is consistently unnecessary or petty or time-wasting. I may be a sly bastard, but I'd probably find myself, a little further down the road, reporting enhancements to the drawing process like submitting two versions of each drawing to accommodate Reviewer X's preference for views rotated by 10 degrees (the subtext being that Reviewer X keeps wasting time).

The peer-review scam, if that's what's happening, might be profitable for those operating it, but for the organisation it's inefficient and wasteful of resources. At some level in the hierarchy, there will be someone who recognises that.

when places make problems and excuses to not let you do things the law says you should be allowed to do then get a lawyer

the world only listens to those that sue and win many times for the same thing happening from different places

I cant sue them, they arent doing anything illegal. They are engaging in poor business practices, resulting in slow work, but that is considered normal operating procedures for most large companies.

And really, the vibe that I am getting from my organization is that efficiency is very low on the list of priorities. We work for the government doing military projects, which means spending millions of dollars more then needed is not only expected, but encouraged by the way the contracts are written. I used to wonder how the US military could spend millions on a project and accomplish so little, I now know why.

Please dont take this to mean that my work is full of corrupt people. My boss is a nice guy, and my coworkers are also nice people. They are just incredibly vague about what they want, and too set in their ways to try and change a bloated, inefficient bureaucratic system. Especially since a less bloated system would require less employees to make it work. Why would anybody try to improve the way things are done if it likely would make their position obsolete?

That's why I am trying to figure out the best way to leave the company, and get a job somewhere else that is smaller, and privately run on private projects. That should eliminate most of the paperwork that I so despise at my current position.

now i have more information why a toilet seat costs at least 500

and a bolt is 1 million

a billion dollar cessna gets the cost from the government way of doing business

Hi Tracker;

First of all alow me to qualify my statements by revealing that I am a high school dropout with a GED, so therefore lack the personal experience to give a fully "baked" insight into your particular dilemma. None the less, I have frequent interactions with engeneers, and some what undecidedly aspire to be a double E myself. Further two of my special interests are aviation and engeneering, so perhaps I could be of some help.

For some number of years I have contended that since the advent of CAD/CAM the term engeneering has become an oxymoron. As an electrician, I have seen the quality of engeneering go straight in the toilet over the past twenty years or so. The garbage that passes for engeneering that I routinely have to manipulate to make work is quite frankly pathetic. Judgeing by the responses of those posters who have personal experience, various comments I have read on a number of engeneering websites, and the viewpoints of engeneers I have spoken to, the particular situation you are facing seems to be quite prevalent among engeneers these days. This is one thing that gives me pause RE pursuing a sheepskin, as I might be jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire, with dubious potential rewards.

At any rate my thought imediately upon reading your post was: Scaled Composites. I don't know if you would stand a snowballs chance in hell of landing a position with them, but if you are as good as you say, you sure seem like you would be a good fit in their organisation. Burt Rutan is definitely an "out of the box" thinker. My guess is that they probably throw away a dumpsters worth of resume's a day. My advice would be to craft a strategy, through networking and what ever resources you can muster, to figure out some way to get a foot in their door.

I too, hope I didn't make too big a fool of myself.

P.S. Love your avitar

Don't worry about your lack of credentials nobs. If I didnt want advice from everybody I wouldnt have posted this in a public forum.

I agree with you about the decline of the engineering profession over the years. Back in WW2, most of our military aircraft were design by only 50 engineers in less then a year. The SR-71, arguably the most advanced aircraft ever made, was designed by a small team of engineers in less then 3 years. Compare that to the current line of aircraft being produced today like the 767, or f-22 which took decades and thousands upon thousands of engineers. Its easy to see where the problems come from.

Anyways, yes, I did apply to scaled composites when I graduated from college, and about a dozen different other places that were similar. Most companies didnt respond. Although, scaled composites was nice enough to send me a postcard saying they received my resume and would consider it. I never heard anything else back, but the acknowledgment of receiving the resume was nice.

Well, if I realy apply myself maybe in four or five years I can say "Yesterday I could not even spell "engeneering" but today I are one".

To go off on a tangent here, I think the complexity of modern systems both drives and is driven by CAD/CAM. An F-22 (stealthy bucket of bolts) is far more complex than a P-51 (great plane for its time). You can't begin to engineer these things without CAD/CAM. However, it appears that CAD/CAM has effects like calculators. I grew up using a slide rule and doing arithmetic in my head, so I learned to feel the numbers. People my age and younger used calculators. Their lack of feeling for numbers can create very spurious results. In engineering, the lack of hand experience produces similar results.

It's clear that the root of the problem is that you're working for a defense contractor on a cost-plus basis, even if the contract is not stated as such. Cost-plus and time and materials contracts inflate costs by creating the perverse incentive for the supplier to increase its costs so it can increase profit. Even seemingly fixed-price contracts (the best kind) can produce this result if they are drafted poorly. So, if you want to get away from this nonsense, avoid defense contractors and contractors for other agencies that manage contracts poorly. You'll need to research agencies' contracting practices to find the good ones. You can then use this information in an interview as to why you want to work for a company.

Tracker,

You are so young, and possibly relatively unknown, that you would be unlikely to win a suit. ALSO, white males(assuming you are) are even LESS likely to win such a suit.

Maybe I am not one to listen to here, but I am currently suffering the SAME type of problem. Oh well, I am told to do practically NO work, and they supposedly pay me more than anyone else, because they KNOW I can do everyones job better than they can. c'est la vie. I spoke with a neighbor about this just last night! So KNOW you are NOT alone!

BTW if it matters, I am a white male that is over twice your age. I have been working in my field for a longer period than you have been alive. For ME, this phenomenon has been popular for only about 6 years. Maybe people want to keep you doing mediocre jobs, so THEY look better.

Good news, I got laid off Friday.

I decided to go with option 2, in that I decided to start sending out resumes and looking for a job while I was still working. So, Wednesday I went to my boss and I told him my plans. I made it clear that I didn't have anything against him or any of my co-workers, I just didnt see the company as a viable long term career for me. I let him know that I was going to look elsewhere, and if he wanted to replace me, he should start the process of collecting resumes and interviewing now so he would have somebody ready when I left.

And then yesterday, I got called into the HR department where they told me that I 'wasn't showing the level of commitment necessary to work at the company, and as such they were laying me off.' So, good news for me because I got to keep my 5 grand, and still apply for unemployment insurance.

I do feel somewhat sad that the job didnt turn out the way I wanted it to. My co-workers were nice people, and my boss was a good guy, it just wasn't a good fit for me.