A philosophical question - Is lateral thinking a valued trait in engineering? - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: e100
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 28, 2022, 04:29:38 pm
content: (Apologies for a rambling post, flame away if need be, but I think it's an interesting topic.)Is lateral thinking a valued trait in engineering, or to put it another way can you get through an engineering degree and whole career by memorizing everything you have been taught but have no ability to think outside the box?I once saw someone describe engineering as "approximate applied math for profit" and when presented with a problem you draw upon your knowledge to figure out what math is needed to come up with a solution that is 'good enough' to make money. It doesn't need to be perfect, just good enough.But what if the problem falls outside of the scope of everything you have been taught? You are now in a zone where books aren't going to help you. How are you going to come up with a solution?

author: penfold
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 28, 2022, 05:29:59 pm
content: Yes and no.Engineering education does involve simply issuing a lot of facts and expecting the student to absorb them, and it is possible to go a long way in 'engineering' just applying them. If the choice of model was wrong, or it was incorrectly applied, or circuit topology wasn't good or if everything was fine - that'll get revealed during testing - "if(problem found) address problem; else don't;" and so many little jobs can easily go like that. Cost can be an overwhelming factor and engineers' time is expensive. Obviously, there is a paradox there because a little more time thinking can save a huge cost in the future... but project managers don't often see that and engineers rarely explain it to them well, and it is often arguably better for a corporation to release a product sooner with faults than later with none.Most companies I've worked for were in quite niche scientific applications, where precision 10ns wide 10kV pulse generator, low-noise DC-coupled 6GHz ADC front ends and positron detectors working inside MRI fields were reasonably common requirements - for those, you tend not to find many worked examples and then keeping the design all within silly safety standards certainly requires a bit of lateral thinking.I like to consider myself good at lateral thinking and the value I've assigned to it certainly makes my clients' eyes water... I guess that makes it a valued trait.

author: eti
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 28, 2022, 11:22:44 pm
content: Of course it is!!

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 28, 2022, 11:49:53 pm
content: Individuals aren't sufficient, except in movies. Teams are necessary ,but why?Multiple things need to happen for a project to be successful, and they require radically different skills - and hence personality traits, and hence multiple people.One way of dividing those up is via the Myers Brigg personality factors. Now while it would be unwise to I think of that as The One Truth, if used wisely there is so e validity to the concepts.Myers Brigg invented eight team roles, each with requiredmstrengths and allowable weaknesses, with the concept that a team need them all to be successful. One person has a primary personality and roles, but can adopt a secondary role. I can never remember the official roles, but I find that alternative team roles are easier to understand and remember. They are:chairmanideas mancriticworkerfinishercommunicatoraction manOne example of an unbalanced team is two ideas men: they would have great fun but nothing would be achieved. Another, of two critics, would result in nothing novel being achieved.The OP's thinking outside the box is the ideas man role. Beneficial in some circumstances, butnot sufficient.

author: Wallace Gasiewicz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 28, 2022, 11:57:14 pm
content: As a comment about "Good Enough"Definition of "Quality" in manufacturing is that the product meets the customers' "Specification" or expectation.

author: eti
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 01, 2022, 12:04:40 am
content: Lateral thinking is a light-speed shortcut to "planet solution", instead of a 50 year interstellar journety, stopping off at every single planet along the route.

author: e100
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 01, 2022, 12:55:33 am
content: Quote from: tggzzz on February 28, 2022, 11:49:53 pmInteresting, does that mean that majority of one person engineering companies are doomed to fail?Perhaps the ones that thrive aren't necessarily run by great engineers - now there's a thought to ruffle a few feathers.

author: Circlotron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 01, 2022, 12:59:55 am
content: I think one good example of lateral thinking in engineering was when Thiele and Small realised that existing equations modeling the behaviour of LCR circuits could also be used to describe the behaviour of a loudspeaker in a bass reflex box.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiele/Small_parameters

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 01, 2022, 01:13:23 am
content: Quote from: tggzzz on February 28, 2022, 11:49:53 pmYou missed out an important word in front of "Myers Brigg" there, "discredited":https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-28315137andhttps://www.vox.com/2014/7/15/5881947/myers-briggs-personality-test-meaninglessfor example.But every team needs an action man, it's something for the chairman to play with while everybody else gets on with doing what they're told, and the chairman's going to need a bodyguard when the solitary worker realises that he's the only one doing any actual work.Yes, I am taking the piss, which I will do whenever anybody trots out some packaged solution for "how to do X in business", especially when access to thesecret sauceinvolves spending money with some guru/consultants. If there was a "one size fits all" methodology for making teams run well whichactuallyworked we'd all be using it. It's amazing that people still teach and trot out Myers Briggs rubbish decades after it was thoroughly debunked. Even if the foundation wasn't rocky as a rocky thing, think for a minute about how useless all those team roles are for say a team of postmen, or plumbers, or any team of people that do areal jobTM.At the best these methodologies sometimes work by mere coincidence because they make people think about and analyze what they are doing, at their worst they destroy any chance of success by being followed religiously, thereby excluding any exploration of solutions that might actual work but aren't part of "the process".For a perfect example of this look at the 'agile' development methodology currently being used to destroy productivity and produce half-functioning products in companies around the world. If it makes you think about what you're doing, for whom, how, and why, it's probably good. If however you insist that every 'ceremony' (yes, that's really what they call them) takes place, every piece of work most produce something deliverable in every 'sprint' whoever inappropriate, that you produce a "working" 'MVP' no matter how broken or useless every sprint, etc. then you're on the highway to hell.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 01, 2022, 03:35:59 am
content: Quote from: Cerebus on March 01, 2022, 01:13:23 amI've seen some curious "development methodologies" in my time.The one that made me cringe the most was one where a development was passed from one "silo" to the next. Each silo consisted of one or more "specialist" teams that would do their bit and then hand the whole project over to the next silo. I found that term rather appropriate ... it's like a project was lobbed into your arena, you did your bit then chucked it over the wall to the next guy. This completely destroyed any end-to-end monitoring and relied solely on written communication for the job to be done properly. I saw it as a corporate version of Chinese whispers.Fortunately, I moved on not long after I was introduced to the concept.

author: T3sl4co1l
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 01, 2022, 05:36:28 am
content: Quote from: e100 on February 28, 2022, 04:29:38 pmYes, and yes.Define the problem a bit more clearly:Does an increased application of "lateral thinking" (definition pending?) result in higher wages/salaries in engineering fields?I would think so. We can measure this quantitatively, at least in terms of outcome, and, given access to suitable data; filtering those data by the antecedent may be less straightforward, however.But you also asked another question:Can you complete an engineering degree, and whole career, using wrote information?I also think so. I have met plenty of engineers, who are by all practical and technical definitions "engineers", and who aren't especially keen on outside-the-box thinking; everything they do is either as prescribed by textbooks, appnotes, etc., or passed down as given from on high.Regarding math, I think so as well, but not to the vaunted level we would like to think -- 99% of engineering consists of busywork/housekeeping (project management, office politics as applicable, part and supplier selection, etc.), basic arithmetic (evaluating equations as given in appnotes / etc.), and informal combinatorics (finding the right set / permutation / sequence to more-or-less satisfy some largely-incomplete constraints/specifications). Even for the most erudite among the most common types of engineer, calculus and such makes up only a very small fraction of overall activity. Less common types can use more -- for example, sooner or later, someone needs to write the simulation tools used by others, which will involve field equations, differential equations, and vector calculus, so, implicitly, calculus and linear algebra as well. Though it's probably arguable that again, 95%+ is spent on combinatorics: writing code to implement those functions.I can probably reduce that further and just say it's all combinatorics, as that's ultimately what squishy neural networks are good at; that, and detecting (pattern matching) environmental cues to, you know, learn all of language and society and how to actually do a job, as presented by other squishy-neural-networks.Tim

author: Berni
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 01, 2022, 06:48:53 am
content: So Wikipedia defines it as:Code:Lateral thinking is a manner of solving problems using an indirect and creative approach via reasoning that is not immediately obvious. It involves ideas that may not be obtainable using only traditional step-by-step logic.I would certainly say it is a useful thing.You don't always find a ready to go solution for whatever you are trying to make. You can sometimes build the required solution out of a combination of existing solutions, but if you stick too much to that you risk the "When you know how to use a hammer, every problem looks like a nail" issue where you force a solution into something it really was not meant for.Yes a lot of engineering work is reading datasheets, drawing diagrams, documenting things. But you have to also come up with design ideas at some point. Sure it might just take a minute of pondering to come up with the idea, but how good that idea is might have a big impact on how the rest of the project goes.The LT appnotes from Jim Williams are a great example of this. He uses chips and discrete components in all sorts of crazy ways to the point where you look at his schematic for a while and then go "Wait.. you can do that?". Often accomplishing some pretty tough tasks with deceivingly simple yet genius circuits.

author: SL4P
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 01, 2022, 06:53:18 am
content: YES to the holder, but most managers are unlikely to see or understand what it is.

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 01, 2022, 06:56:00 am
content: One can be productive in engineering by only knowing things by rote.One can be an excellent engineer by applying logic and rational thinking effectively.One can be a brilliant engineer by applying logic, and rational and lateral thinking.One is an asshole (and not an "idea person"), if they only apply lateral thinking but not logic or more traditional methods of problem solving.Thinking outside the box (as in re-evaluating the problem at hand, considering whether it even needs to be solved to perform the task at hand) is useful in all creative endeavours. It isn't always necessary, because not all work (including engineering or even research) is necessarily creative.Being incapable of rational thought or logic, and being incapable of applying traditional problem solving methods, does mean one is unsuitable for creative work. Those who describe themselves as an "ideas person", who gets the brilliant idea, describes it in a single sentence "to a fleet of designer and engineer drones to implement it", are assholes. I have had dozens of "ideas persons" approach me with a "brilliant idea", suggesting that if I implement their idea, I get 50% of the profits. Or less. This is unrealistic, because a single idea is just the starting point in the solution phase space. Problem solving methods are like rolling a marble downhill, to find the lowest pointreachable from a given starting point. Creative thinking is finding reasons for picking specific starting points that should lead to better (lower) end points. Lateral thinking and thinking outside the box is changing the entire phase space, by replacing dimensions with something else, with the change being such that it suggests promising starting points. The starting point is worth nothing, unless it is followed by the hard work finding the end result.You have to learn the rules first, before you can break them beneficially without any harm. No shortcuts exist.

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 01, 2022, 07:35:35 am
content: Consider what might initiate lateral thinking, new technologies of course and/or pressure from managers and bean counters.Instrument/appliance PSU's are a fine example and SMPS has evolved in my lifetime to be the most common current source on the planet and allowed the miniaturization of all manner of things.Reduced size, weight, increased efficiencies and lower copper content are all features that have reduced PSU cost keeping designers and bean counters happy.We now consider the simple SMPS a basic design whereas just a few decades ago the even simpler linear PSU ruled the roost until someone thought laterally and used the new technologies available to them.If you can't think outside the square you shouldn't be in this game.

author: Berni
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 01, 2022, 07:52:19 am
content: Yeah such "ideas people" are rarely any help at all.It certainly is helpful to discuss a design with someone. I had plenty of good ideas come out of it, sometimes even as just a "rubber duck effect" where in trying to describe the issue you get extra ideas. But when you have someone from outside the field chiming in ideas, you do get outside the box ideas that are instead really difficult to actually implement or are things that you know would perform poorly before even doing any back of the napkin math. Then you typically have to spend a lot of time explaining to them why there brilliant idea is not quite so brilliant.The one good use for "ideas people" is coming up with kickstarter projects to run a invest and disappear scam on.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 01, 2022, 08:40:59 am
content: Quote from: Cerebus on March 01, 2022, 01:13:23 amYes and no.I've been through the 16PF test as part of being interviewed for a job and in interview panels.After the interview the "interpreter" explained to the company what it was about, and three friends shared our results. They were allremarkablyperceptive e.g. "I hate to sound sexist, but she seems loveable", even though the interpreter didn't meet us.In the interview panels the interpreter gave pointlessly anodyne statements that could have been made by anybody that had met the interviewee for a few minutes - which he had done.Conclusion 1: the results do depend on the interpreter, and aren't as rigorous as claimed.Conclusion 2: the right interpreter can gain remarkable insights. In this case a chess grandmaster, who presumably is used to spotting spatial/numerical patterns.QuoteThe action man role was "don't know where else to fit them"QuoteThe "sometimes" had a 100% hit rate, with the right interpreter and right division of roles. I could never understand the standard roles such as "plant".The companies used the interview results sensibly: as a source of questions in the second interview. Otherwise they were ignored.Overall it isveryuseful mechanism for realising that different people have different strengths and weaknesses, and you need to cover one person's weaknesses with another person's strengths.QuoteAgreed.I too intensely dislike the "magic" and "religion" of agile methods. When they fail and the excuse is that you only used 11 of the 12 principles, it is not a good advert for the methods! Nonetheless, they can have value if they jolt a company out of sclerotic waterfall practices.But overall they are no subsititue for a team of people thatknowhow to create something new.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 01, 2022, 08:42:17 am
content: Quote from: Brumby on March 01, 2022, 03:35:59 amI've seen exactly that too. Sclerotic and dysfunctional.

author: DiTBho
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 01, 2022, 08:51:11 am
content: Quote from: Berni on March 01, 2022, 07:52:19 amPragmatic Programmer, I prefer theRubber duck (debugging) effect, a method of debugging code by articulating a problem in spoken natural language.It actually works

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 01, 2022, 08:54:03 am
content: Quote from: Berni on March 01, 2022, 07:52:19 amYes; I personally have done my best work in a team with only slightly overlapping domains of knowledge and responsibility. I claim it can besynergistic, if there is sufficient trust (so that egos do not become a hindrance) and honest, direct communication.And the rubber duck effect is real: describing ideas in a structured linear fashion necessarily organizes that idea. It is a process that works.The point of my post was combining lateral thinking with logic and hard work can yield brilliant results; but lateral thinking alone, without the knowledge or the hard drudge work going through the steps, is really not useful at all. That is, one cannot use lateral thinking as a shortcut to avoid learning, or to avoid the drudge work. It just doesn't work that way.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 01, 2022, 09:24:18 am
content: Quote from: Nominal Animal on March 01, 2022, 08:54:03 amExactly.

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 01, 2022, 02:42:36 pm
content: Quote from: tggzzz on March 01, 2022, 08:40:59 amInyourexperience – probably just of one place that used it and had a culture that was the real cause for success. Need I remind your that "anecdote ≠ evidence". Like I say, if Myers Briggs actually works, and isn't merely a 100 year old management religion cobbled together out of fragments of Jungian psychology, if it actually works, all the time, everybody would use it. They do not. No doubtsomeof the places that use graphology in employee selection get good results albeit by happenstance, and I'm sure some ancient Roman businesses had immense success in employee selection using Augurs to read animal entrails.QuoteYou don't need Myers Brigs to tell you that, and it doesn't purport to exist to remind you of "different strokes for different folks", it purports to provide an accurate personality analysis and any psychologist will tell you that itdoes notand if that is what you want that there are modern personality inventory tests that will (for some probabilistically quantifiable value of "will").

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 01, 2022, 02:54:52 pm
content: Regardless of whetherMyers-Briggsis valid or not, I believe it to be the wrong tool for selecting workers or team members. The reason is, the personality types I've worked best with have varied wildly, and have not correlated with the task at hand.Furthermore, things likecustomer servicedoes NOT require an extrovert personality type. It is a simple skill that can be taught to almost all humans. I do not know of any jobs where a specific personality type was a requirement, or more useful than say personal motivation and interest.I suspect that the best interviewers and evaluators that use Myers-Briggs terminology, use the terminology to describe their observations on how the target person interacts with others, instead of using Myers-Briggs as a framework to estimate or predict how they might interact with others.

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 01, 2022, 03:09:20 pm
content: Quote from: Nominal Animal on March 01, 2022, 08:54:03 amMy innate suspicion on encountering the sort of person who starts with telling you "I'm good at lateral thinking" is that they have left out the second half of the sentence "but I'm terrible at logical thinking or actually getting on and doing something".Edward de Bono, the father of the term Lateral Thinking, might possibly have become a one trick pony in his latter career, but I blame that on the tendency of the great unwashed to religiously grasp some ideas and turn their originators into gurus whether they like it or not. Unfortunately it seems de Bono wasn't resistant to this pressure. His original aim was to studycreativityand how toteachpeople to be creative thinkers and what he identified as one route he dubbedLateral Thinking.But Lateral Thinking isn't the only route to creative thinking. Indeed we all know people who are highly creative who might nevertheless stumble over many of the "lateral thinking puzzles" that have become the trademark of this school of thinking. I find it ironic that most lateral thinking puzzles haveacorrect answer, which suggests that the exercise tends towards teaching aformulaicproblem solving method rather than acreativeone. I wouldn't be surprised to discover that a lot of people who are fans of Lateral Thinking haven't evenheardof Edward de Bono, let alone actuallyreadany of this books,As it is, I don't think we have yet found a method to teach creative thinking, not in "Lateral ThinkingTM" nor in other schools of thought. So perhaps the original question should not be about lateral thinking but about whether creativity ought to be a valued trait. Ifthatwas the question I would answer with an unqualified "yes".Edit: Typo (literal)

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 01, 2022, 03:12:33 pm
content: Quote from: Nominal Animal on March 01, 2022, 02:54:52 pmI don't know, I thinknarcissistic megalomaniaandpsychopathyare pretty much prerequisite personality traits for any actual or 'want to be' totalitarian dictator.

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 01, 2022, 04:15:53 pm
content: Quote from: Cerebus on March 01, 2022, 03:12:33 pmActually, no. You see, they can be considered personality disorders that develop when a single person is given too much power, and incentives to twist that way.It also explains why the road to hell is paved with good intentions. If you give a human totalitarian powers, there is a very high chance they become a totalitarian dictator and an utter dick, no matter how good their initial intent.

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 01, 2022, 04:18:05 pm
content: In a work environment, you see something similar between bosses who lead from the front, and the bosses who lead from the back.

author: e100
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 01, 2022, 04:58:32 pm
content: Quote from: Cerebus on March 01, 2022, 03:09:20 pmIf you were stuck on a particular engineering problem and such a person offered to help you find a solution, would you automatically reject their offer because of your suspicions? The consequence of rejecting that offer could be that you never find a solution, or it takes much longer to find a solution.I think I've just created a new catch phase, I shall call it "anti-engineering" - the processes by which you fail to achieve an engineering goal because you distrust or dislike someone and therefore you avoid them even though they may be able to help you.On a related theme there seems to be a correlation between people who have achieved guru status in their particular field and a reluctance to have an open mind to new or alternative ways of doing things. Some of that is due to the ageing process, as we get older we become risk adverse but there's more to it than that. I'm a guru of nothing so am happy to listen to anyone. I reserve the right to reject their advice, but at least I make an effort to listen. Is it not better to have an open mind rather than a closed mind?

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 01, 2022, 05:05:58 pm
content: Quote from: e100 on March 01, 2022, 04:58:32 pmYou mean, like "Have you tried turning it off and then on again?"Or perhaps "I use crystals to cleanse the vibrations in my body. Perhaps you could do the same here?"Quote from: e100 on March 01, 2022, 04:58:32 pmNo, that's what social games and confusing popularity with usefulness/experience/correctness leads to.

author: fourfathom
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 01, 2022, 05:35:06 pm
content: Quote from: e100 on March 01, 2022, 04:58:32 pmNot in my experience. The recognized gurus I've known were smart, curious, creative, and experienced. By their very nature they were open to new ideas.

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 01, 2022, 06:05:48 pm
content: Quote from: e100 on March 01, 2022, 04:58:32 pmI haven't suggested anything like that, you've put words in my mouth by hugely extrapolating from something that, quite obviously, is a mere quip. Moreover, you've suggested that a mere suspicion would motivate me to reject someone's help. It wouldn't, my judgement would only be formed by the quality of their suggestions, not a mere initial suspicion. I'm hugely against the idea of jumping to conclusions from insufficient evidence, whereas you seem to have done exactly that.Let me guess, you like to go around telling people how good you are at lateral thinking.

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 01, 2022, 06:08:38 pm
content: Quote from: Nominal Animal on March 01, 2022, 04:18:05 pmI used to have a boss who led from another continent, or somewhere on the road, and he was supposed to be in the same office as me.Hisboss was frequently heard to ask "Remind me, what exactly is that Edward is actually supposed to do?".

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 01, 2022, 06:18:17 pm
content: Quote from: Cerebus on March 01, 2022, 02:42:36 pmThose are strawman points, if you read the bits you snipped.I was explicit that it was my experience, it was two places (HP Labs and Cambridge Consultants), they did not use it during work, merely as anadjunctto interviewing. The culture was, unsurprisingly, the dominant factor in those two places' success, and Myers Brigg paid no part in it (because it wasn't used).QuoteAll the engineers that went to the talks found it very interesting and enlightening.

author: rstofer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 01, 2022, 06:30:49 pm
content: A thought and a tale:In my view, July 20, 1969 proves that we should remove "can't" from the dictionary. Really, the concept just keeps getting in the way! Every time I hear "I can't..." or "We can't..." it's all I can do to stop myself from going non-linear.So we're pouring foundations for steel columns and the standard concrete spec is 2500 PSI compressive strength in 28 days. Now, the project isn't being built for the greater glory of mankind, it is going to save the company about $3000 per day. So that 28 day wait is going to cost us about $84k.The "never say can't guy" (who knows diddly about concrete) grabs the concrete design manual off the shelf and looks at some graphs. Did you know that you could just add a little more cement to the mix and have 2500 psi by the next morning? Apparently neither did anyone else. But it's true, we had the samples at the lab first thing in the morning and they passed testing. We hung the steel that very day! Saved the company $84k!And, yes, that kind of stuff will get you a raise and a reputation. There is no such thing as "can't".

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 01, 2022, 06:34:09 pm
content: Quote from: tggzzz on March 01, 2022, 06:18:17 pmNo they are not strawman arguments, and I snipped the bits that I had no objection to. You've snipped lots, is that evidence of fallacious argument, as you imply it is?Twoplaces thatyouworked is still as much anecdote as it would be if it was justone. If you want to claim that Myers Briggs is anything other than undiluted hooey, you need to cite properly conducted surveys, from unbiased sources, that demonstate that. Reiterating "It worked for me" isn't evidence.Quote"interesting and enlightening" is not evidence of any kind of truth, it's a subjective opinion. It's the sort of polite phrase that gets used about a vicar's sermon in the parish magazine, which I suggest is quite an apposite comparison.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 01, 2022, 06:43:38 pm
content: Quote from: rstofer on March 01, 2022, 06:30:49 pmThe obvious response to "I can't" or "We can't" is "for what set of constraints?". The initial statements don't usually specify those. Unless a request defies basic laws of nature, a thing only can't be done because of perceived or real constraints. Usually, when you flush out the constraints some are completely bogus, and some can be talked through and addressed. If you talk things through, and the constraints can't be sufficiently relaxed with reasonable resources, then you have a properly specified statement, like "This can't be done with the resources we can throw at the problem". That's the most effective thing a good manager can bring to the conference table.

author: rstofer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 01, 2022, 07:02:18 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on March 01, 2022, 06:43:38 pmI like the idea of "change the rules!". Find another way to describe success. Sounds weird but it really boils down to "find another solution".Sometimes you find yourself in a situation where the rules are more important than meeting the goal. It's time to change jobs...

author: armandine2
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 01, 2022, 07:10:58 pm
content: Of Tyrosis a chapter in Vannevar Bush's autobiography "pieces of the action", in which he lambastes the ingenious Geoffrey Pyke for wasting everyone's time on the "ice island" plan. A lateral thought needs to be nipped in the bud early doors.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 01, 2022, 07:32:29 pm
content: Quote from: rstofer on March 01, 2022, 07:02:18 pmThat sounds good.Quote from: rstofer on March 01, 2022, 07:02:18 pmThat sounds bad. The way most people find to redefine success has a very bad outcome. E.g. "A does better than B. Make A come up to B's level" usually gets redefined to "A does better than B. Make A and B level". This is almost universally implemented the easy way - kneecap B until they fall to A's level.

author: snarkysparky
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 01, 2022, 08:17:39 pm
content: Whats the definition of lateral thinking. I could not find any significantly qualitative description.After interviewing a candidate for a programming position i asked whether he could problem solve with code. His resume was filled with all the stuff he had done, which seemed mostly like read the manuals and perform the correct setups.We need a person who will "design" a robust system by understanding basics of algorithms and core coding practice.Am i asking for lateral thinking ?

author: RJSV
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 01, 2022, 11:12:31 pm
content: NICE !A very good post, as an Engineer I think (or try to think), about both existing / mundane, and about new/ unformed.I think, maybe too much like East Asia folks; Thailand, Vietnam, India. But a good thing, avoiding (extreme) superstition.But I need to comment: This thread is already going to take some days, to read, proper.I think about seemingly TRIVIAL and meaningless factors, to creative success. What about a 'clean', tidy DESK... (So What ?)My opinion, clean-tidy, AND EMPTY work areas 'INVITE' creation...a sort of VACUUM pulling, out of 'nowhere'...Try, leaving your desk piled high, crap on crap, and an old sandwich half, in there ...Then, start your creative efforts, for the day..."LATERAL ...?" golly, that's a Hallmark, of inventors like Edison, Tesla, even artists like Mark Twain and...my favorite: Stanley Kubrick.Don't forget Jimi Hendrix, helped usher in the 'feedback' thing, in popular music.(Photo shows YOGA, stokes the flame of 'Lateral Thinking, big time...).-Rick B.

author: e100
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 02, 2022, 02:04:15 am
content: Quote from: Cerebus on March 01, 2022, 06:05:48 pmNo, I tell people that I'm good at breaking stuff because I know engineers don't spend much time thinking about edge cases.Take for example the apparently simple task of establishing the identity of a person within a family. Is first name, last name sufficient?The first thought is yes, but what if a family member gets married and changes their surname, it's still the same person right? That's 50% of the people in your database, not just an isolated case.What if a family adopts a child that has the same first name, last name and date of birth as one of their existing children. How do you tell them apart? The engineer will say that will never happen and therefore there's no point thinking about it. I'll say, you may be right, but what if it does happen, will your system be able to cope or will it get horribly confused?

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 02, 2022, 02:11:30 am
content: Quote from: e100 on March 02, 2022, 02:04:15 amCompetent engineers spend much of their time thinking about edge cases. The common cases aren't usually that challenging. Maybe you've encountered too many bad engineers.

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 02, 2022, 02:25:39 am
content: Quote from: coppice on March 02, 2022, 02:11:30 amAnd this gets back to the heart of the OPs question. Lateral thinking is an important and useful skill. But most people who are good at it don't last long doing the repetitive center case work. The read the standards book and generate the answer guys are also valuable (and therefore competent in their domain).The problems always come when people are mismatched to their jobs. If Briggs Meyer doesn't work for you as a framework for accomplishing that, fine, but something does have to be done. Good management is as challenging as any other job. As can be seen by how uncommon it is.

author: RJSV
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 02, 2022, 02:32:05 am
content: By the way, Cerebus and others, interested in concept, of non-achieving IDEA Man:I felt that, partially, am one of 'those', having to push, for any practical side, for approaching business and science. Looking and 'talking' like an 'impractical' idea flapper...BUT, I'm remembering the older work, PC Board repair Technician, Teletype electronics troubleshooting, in factory. Managers had my numbers, (units repaired per quarter, etc). They were pretty impressive, I heard.But that side takes work...Where's my staff, my coffees getting cold, here ?

author: RJSV
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 02, 2022, 03:14:41 am
content: One sincere question I have might seem out of place, but what about the disfunctional players who, not on their own merits, still manage to hold on, to jobs and responsibility...That's the sort of imperfection that goes on, if you observe for a while. I had a lawyer once, hired part of my team. But he had a drinking problem, not at work, but he needed 'time off', to be elsewhere, a bit too much. Those edge types, not too extreme but sometimes undependable, those types exist, around big office settings.Where would the 'mostly OK but sometimes not OK', where did those types 'fit' the team types...because they DO persist.The guy doing legal work for a small entity, partially because he can't hold a main-stream regular job. A guy with no school, besides high school, doing fine in software, (despite prison record, for narcotics).These sorts of workplace 'landscape' are just as much a part of (our industrial) history, as a story about Steve Jobs is.Put everybody working in the ORG chart, is all I'm saying...They are already contributing, so...

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 02, 2022, 07:23:12 am
content: For what it is worth:I have worked quite a bit with visual artists, on things that needed engineering of some sort. When we formed ateamwhere I could provide the logical and rational feedback to the 'vision' –– and quite often very lateral ideas! ––, the results were impressive, and the work wasfun. (When I was instead seen as a hindrance, 'mundane', artless, the work was horrible and destroyed peoples creativity and will.)The key point is that lateral thinking cannot shortcut the hard work, and the limitations of the resources at hand. All 'visions' must be tempered by logic and hard work to become implementable with the given resources.This means that lateral thinking is useful and valuable,but only in conjunction with rational thought and applied logic. It radically expands the achievable solution space, but without the logic and rational thinking and hard work, it alone will not reach a solution. At best, it cansuggesta solution, but without any basis as to why that solution should be better than any other solution.

author: e100
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 02, 2022, 08:21:19 am
content: Quote from: RJHayward on March 02, 2022, 03:14:41 amIf you have someone in your team who is dead weight, then the quickest way to get ride of them is to get them promoted out of your team to be the manager of another team. Much easier than getting HR involved and going through the long winded and soul destroying process of trying to get them kicked out due to poor performance. Of course things could backfire and they end up back in charge of your team, so it's a calculated risk.Obviously from a company perspective this a bad thing, but if you're a humble cubicle dweller then all you really care about is making life easier for yourself. It's the office survival instinctTM.

author: penfold
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 02, 2022, 08:28:55 am
content: Quote from: snarkysparky on March 01, 2022, 08:17:39 pmYou're right... definitions look a bit sparse. Reading between the lines of a few articles...Conventional, logical, verticle thinking would be to solve a problem using defined rules, such that each step of the solution had a very clear and rational trace to the previous steps. The value of a solution would be measured (also in the lateral case) by its usual merits of meeting spec, BOM-cost, time to implement and risk (which puts a high weighting towards historic implementations). Lateral thinking would be where the "lateral thinker" is able to see solutions that might logically not, initially, be a strong solution can still become much stronger than a direct logical solution... and is able to evaluate their merits before anyone has realised they deviated from the programme.So lateral thinking could be quantified by the number of apparent logical absurdities if you were to describe it in abstract-ish terms i.e. not how you'd sell it to a project manager. Perhaps "we are going to produce a solution that uses a totally new design, employing a much larger BOM-count and won't have any programmable components", the reasoning might be "because the old design was too expensive to manufacture, component shortages were killing production schedule and validation cycles for software were too slow". And that involves thinking outside the box in so much as considering broader benefits to the company and how resources can be better utilised.With that example, I'd say that a lot of people don't necessarily realise when they are laterally thinking and it's just part of good engineering generally. There's also a lot of people who think they're laterally thinking when indeed they're just having crazy random stabs in the dark. Thinking outside the box could just be questioning a spec, in an intelligent way, to intelligently ask "is this genuinely a requirement the customer needs" and whether it is improperly constraining a solution where a much better one would result by relaxing that requirement slightly.Firmware may be a good example also, I rarely write good codefirst,second, third time around, it always seems logical to me, but lots of nesting and too many repeated logical tests and can always be refactored better. I think the refactoring is a good example of lateral thinking... if not only that my original logic (whether wrong or not) didn't produce an optimal solution but revised to a different pattern produced much better. This is again something that some people can just do automatically, some people can't and some people just think they do.How's that for a definition? Apologies if I've just repeated a few things that others have said along the way.

author: e100
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 02, 2022, 10:06:14 am
content: Quote from: penfold on March 02, 2022, 08:28:55 amThe first time I heard engineers talking about refactoring code I had no idea what they were talking about. It was only later that realized that it was just a fancy buzzword that could of been dreamt up on the Starship Enterprise.Spock: Captain we're going to have to refactor the codeKirk: I have no idea what that means, but if that's what you need to do, then do it, do it now!Spock: Captain, it just means we have to re-write it because we did it wrong last time.Kirk: <Places hands over ears and turns away> Noooo, don't tell me these things. Too much information. I'm just a middle manager.I'm a rubbish part time self taught programmer. My struggles aren't so much with algorithms and bugs, its just getting the goddam code to compile so refactoring is basically a cleanup process where I take my ugly inelegant code and make it slightly less ugly and inelegant. Sometimes I even put comments in!Currently I'm working in an OO language so have all my numeric values hidden inside self reporting objects that monitor for min max violations, have reporting thresholds and check for expired data. Essentially the system logs all changes to everything so I can step back in time and slowly replay events without having to jump into the debugger. It's taken years to get to this stage, perhaps I'm re-inventing the wheel, I don't know however it's the first system where I can actually say, "I think I know why its doing that, it's because <reason>" without having to step through code.

author: penfold
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 02, 2022, 10:50:28 am
content: Quote from: e100 on March 02, 2022, 10:06:14 amMe too, I'll avoid saying rubbish because, well, it is part of my job, a relatively small part of being a mostly analogue and power person, but, it happens that sometimes I need to do a small amount of embedded and the first pass is rarely satisfactory. So I'd clarify to say, it isn't a particularly natural language to me and the thoughts as they happen in my brain don't necessarily produce good code, so I definitely lack some lateral thinking in that regard and my analysis and improvement cycles are fairly logical. I postulate therefore that somebody who can write good code naturally must surely be doing a lot of lateral thinking, whether they realise it or not.Drawing good (appreciated by others) schematics, hierarchically, so that testable areas are cohesively documented, big BGA packages that are only ever going to be JTAG tested are pushed back, requirements and design decisions are visible and verifiable etc is kinda similar (in my opinion, feel free to oppose it), even flat, non-hierarchical, schematics which do that and avoid a big rats-nest of connections are difficult to draw if you base the arrangement of a circuit block only on a narrow set of logic following from the previous cluster of components... perhaps even the idea of "thinking ahead" is also a lateral thought process, or at least non-linear or high-order thinking as they call it.

author: RJSV
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 02, 2022, 11:05:01 am
content: OK, I'm 'wading' thru this; This subject is front and center, for those of us looking / needing improvement.Here is an example, of lateral thinking, in the 'immature' sense, maybe:The (smart terminal) had a 2 khz buzzer beeper, for when fax done, enabled by a mapped control bit, locally. Well, with a stretch of (8-bit ) code, from a hobby magazine, you could 'modulate', basically treating that 1-bit audio like the fixed 2 khz was, also, along for the ride; merely adding a 'buzz' to the musical tones.So, point is, that was, maybe, LATERAL thinking, but about 'goof-off' subject material, but DID get a response to the effect of:"...THAT will never work, as that channel is fixed frequency !..."While, like I said, it was a brief diversion, from daily tasks, that was 'Lateral thinking VS closed minds', ...was it ?That being: I was thinking 'Modulate', but also there was a file loading problem preventing proper load and run of the microcode.The other fellow; He was, apparently, convinced:"That will never WORK, ...it's a fixed frequency tone"A sort-of 'Anti-Lateral', or I guess you (already) have been terming that as 'Vertical'.But folks, like a lot of Engineers, I think a lot of TEAM concept hasn't been taught, well, at least in MY various schooling / training.

author: penfold
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 02, 2022, 12:22:36 pm
content: I think that's a good example. But to a person who'd done that before or was from a comms and protocols background (maybe not that, but a background more naturally focused on modulation and spectra or whatever), that wouldn't be quite the same logical jump as to somebody who... can't think of a good example... but somebody who say, didn't think in those terms.So, a bit like an IQ test, as a measure of somebody's ability to recognise patterns, reason syllogisms and whatever else it tests, it is possible to raise your score a little by learning to recognise the kinds of trickery used in number patterns and at least with vocabulary, just because a person doesn't know the meaning of the words in a syllogism doesn't define their capacity to learn them and do better on successive tests. So... I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with anything, just musing on how lateral thinking to one person could be (I don't like the term verticle and lateral... surely if you're laying down they're co-linear?) to another, the opposite... so that's perhaps a lot of decisions and processes natural to engineering that to somebody else would be very lateral.Non-linear I think works better with my interpretation of it, more about thinking several steps ahead and evaluating a route between, drawing in knowledge from other disciplines, questioning the end result before it's defined etc. But most importantly, I don't in any way want to make it sound like I think that any of linear, non-linear, rational, verticle, lateral, real, imaginary, whatever thinking, is "better" than the other... I think I might have implied before that I do... the fact that some employers like to hear the buzz-words when justifying a salary boost is the only reason I'd call out-of-the-box thinking better.

author: mc172
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 02, 2022, 12:24:05 pm
content: I haven't read the entire thread so sorry if I repeat what someone else has said.My experience is that it depends on who you're working for and this is the difficult bit as it takes you a few months in a place to figure this out. I've worked at places that didn't like it when I came up with solutions that were a bit unconventional and they made it clear that I should keep to the well-trodden path, and in some cases pretty much just do it like the last guy did because that's how we do it. OK then, time to find a new job. One of these bizarre places I ended up working actually told me that doing such things as thinking about problems wasn't my job, "that's what Colin's here for, he's the "ideas man" in this company!"Other places I've worked have encouraged thinking about problems and coming up with unique (or clever if you like, not that I think I'm clever) solutions to them that aren't immediately obvious, even if it takes a bit of extra time to get there over doing it "conventionally" or just cracking on with whatever you've been given like a dead-inside CAD drone. Often if you step back a bit and ask how the product you're designing is going to be used or what it interfaces with and how flexible those details are (which in my experience are never given to you without having to ask for them), lightbulb moments happen and that's where you start being able to claw back some performance margin, perhaps you might even be able to outperform your competitors because you've seen something they haven't.Keep yourself grounded though, it's important to remind yourself sometimes that it's also not good to be constantly reinventing the wheel, despite it being quite interesting to do so.Also, unfortunately, there are boring, mundane jobs that need to be done such as maintaining CAD libraries, PLM systems, BOMs, wiring harness drawingsand such like. Putting thinking creative type people on those tasks for too long is a highly effective way of killing them off, whether they burn out or find more stimulating work elsewhere.

author: penfold
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 02, 2022, 01:29:35 pm
content: Quote from: mc172 on March 02, 2022, 12:24:05 pmI once got accosted for daring to speak to a lead-physicist about possible ways we could solve adireinternal EMC issue (10kV pulses and FPGA reset controllers rarely play well at the best of times less so when there's no room to fit any more ferrites), it wasn't even particularly lateral or crazy thinking, in just a casual water-cooler conversation I dared to consider the root cause of the problem because there was no more room for sticking plasters (other interpretations of events may exist).The side-rant is that there is far too much, unjustified, value a company can take from saying "all of our engineers have advanced degrees, therefore, our product is great" when maybe it should be "we have a range of skills, expertise and qualifications among our engineers that enables them to function well together and produce us a good product". By the very definition, everything learned at university is learnable and everything from experience is forgettable (and vice versa) and there is a hell of a lot which can be learned from "drone" tasks and very little from exclusively having blue-sky ideas and not experiencing the pains of entering x-number of components into an ERP system. So, hopefully, I've self demonstrated there that my resume may or may not be blank, I may or may not be a competent engineer, what I consider in myself to be good lateral thinking may just be flawed logic and in any case, I don't know when to shut up.

author: Berni
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 02, 2022, 01:58:44 pm
content: That sort of design work compartmentalization with lacking communication between departments is how a lot of idiotic designs come into existence.The department in question just does whatever they are told and throws it over the wall to the next. They don't have a big picture view of what this thing is supposed to be so they just implement whatever the team before told them to implement. If it's something stupid they will design it in. The team after them might not know why some of these features ware in the design so they just work around them towards what they think this should do.... etcBy the end of it the product has some design features about it that seam completely backwards. Like a product clearly has hardware capability to do X but instead the software uses that hardware to do Y in some kludgy hacky way, even tho the hardware to do Y would have been simpler than hardware to do X

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 02, 2022, 03:40:55 pm
content: Quote from: e100 on March 02, 2022, 10:06:14 amIt's pretty obvious that the origin of the term 'refactoring' comes not from some random desire to just make up fancy sounding words but from the mathematical term 'factoring' meaning "take out the parts that are in common in a lot of places and put them in just one place".

author: Circlotron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 02, 2022, 09:30:49 pm
content: At one stage I worked for ten years in a SMPS design lab as a technical assistant so I had no direct input to designs. There was this situation with putting 3mm screws though a heat sink extrusion into a device block and they only allowed for the screw to engage into that aluminium block three turns! I pointed out that that would strip the thread in the aluminium very easily, especially if it had to be dismantled and reassembled. I was shouted down with words to the effect that the production department should learn how to torque screws properly... Eventually the service dept complained long and hard enough for them to change it.Another time I found that their new 3kW 54vdc resonant mode psu would overheat the hexfilar wound dual 70mm diameter toroids if the load was approx 3 amps because the resonant frequency and toroid losses reached a max. Problem did not occur at higher loads. No one would listen so I set one up on my bench and let it run until it was fairly smoking then went and got the boss. That finally got some results.

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 02, 2022, 11:25:03 pm
content: If the OP is still reading the prior post points out that listening is another valuable engineering skill, right up there with lateral thinking. The more education and/or experience you have the more difficult this seems to be. I know, because I have found myself guilty on more than one occasion.

author: RJSV
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 03, 2022, 12:47:17 am
content: mc172 thanks:Beg to differ, just a little.It's alright: This here (blog site) has, I don't know...picture(s) of a cat (or cats),I posted an interesting BUG picture; No One objected.We humans now, subject matter is 'all over the place'.(I'd rather play / teach my GUITAR).So, here I am, keeping re-inventing, the wheel...while others become 'Card Playing' experts. I simply LOVE novelty, whether by my mind, or others.I even DID re-invent, a wheel:Enter the 'Just in Time' SPOKE...it's a system to, in transit, disconnect each spoke in turn for missing any collision, with support columns that,Poke through the wheel spokes...So, respectfully, I want to INVENT... It's not a quick easy path, I've been lucky (life and limb, literally)!Thanks, there !

author: RJSV
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 03, 2022, 11:05:45 pm
content: FOLKS:Sorry, sorry, sorry, I didn't get a good 'shake-out', and examination, of my previous point:'IF THEY ARE ON THE PAYROLL, 'they' are then part of the equation, regarding 'dead weight' employees.Course some employees are actually OK and under some sort of unfair reputation.But, the proverbial 'Boss's Son' DOES EXIST, in most any dialog to the contrary is...well...flat out at odds with a clear discussion.Comprendai ?So,... while some see the humor, in making an ORG CHART having those subtle little lines, connecting PURCHASING DEPT. / SHIPPING DEPT. / etc. Thoselines NEED to include, for validity, 'Boss's SON..Owner's Daughter's Husband...Owner's Second Cousin,etc. etc.OR...How about put a 'disclaimer' in the data, saying:"All relatives or good friends data,...pls see page 52.".That way you, actually covered that workplace.Sorry sorry sorry.

author: penfold
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 03, 2022, 11:45:52 pm
content: Quote from: RJHayward on March 03, 2022, 11:05:45 pmYeah, haha, they certainly should, at least whilst they're complying with the ISO9001 stuff by having job-specs, minimum qualifications, KPIs etc... they should at least be honest and put "...unless the employee is the boss's son".The MD once asked me to review a firmware guy's (from a different office) code (because they slyly wanted to get rid of him and hoped I'd say it was awful and he was lazy), I sent back my report saying it was "very impressive and way beyond my critique but btw... your son's isn't"... and that was the end of that job.

author: fourfathom
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 04, 2022, 07:21:02 pm
content: I'm sorry to hear about all the dysfunctional companies you guys have had to work for. I've seen some of that crap but for the last 25 years of my career I worked for startups where we were focused on being successful rather than empire building and protecting deadwood. There's a world of difference.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 04, 2022, 07:26:06 pm
content: Quote from: fourfathom on March 04, 2022, 07:21:02 pmMost stories of larger companies are a mix of good and bad, because any large group of people is never just one thing. If you want to hear stories of truly dysfunctional places, you need to listen to stories of startups. They get really polarised, and good ones often flip to awful if the original plan doesn't actually go to plan.

author: RJSV
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 04, 2022, 07:50:08 pm
content: Yea !Lateral Thinking: Towards One's Career :The 'troubled' places had similar structure, being at about 20 employees, roughly. Going into WEB sites later, that had 'consumer review' type evaluations, all did say, " Don't work here if you want to build a career, that's not in the equation..."Plus, I have to say, I've gotten a few decent jobs, VIA a relative, or neighbor...One interesting thing is:These 'little' places, doing new products, had a designated 'Outsider', right in the center, an Inventor type / Phd. One of those 'hyper-brained' people was named...(wait for it...). 'Clark Smarter'. lolBUT, back to Lateral Thinking:That Mars Lander, firing retro-rockets and 'hovering', at 20 feet up, that's over the top just weird."Did your 7 y.o. KID come up with that SUCESSFUL IDEA ?"AND, also the 'BACKWARDS' travel HOME, that 1rst rocket booster that literally turns around and flies back to the pad...AWESOME OFF-SCALE......(Did someone's 4 year old come up with that?...(Seriously, NASA folks...whew...)!

author: fourfathom
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 07, 2022, 05:49:33 am
content: About this lateral thinking... It seems to me that we should be talking about specialists and generalists. I'm definitely a generalist, but with some areas of specialization. In my experience it's the generalists that come up with what appear to be the out-of-the-box concepts -- not because of any particular "lateral" thinking, but because they can bring experience from one field and apply in in another. A specialist wouldn't have been exposed to that foreign concept or application, so would never have a chance to consider it.There are obviously places where you need a specialist, and others where a generalist will have useful strengths. Lateral thinking without adequate knowledge seldom results in anything useful.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 07, 2022, 09:38:51 am
content: Quote from: fourfathom on March 07, 2022, 05:49:33 amThat's a sensible generalisation (i.e. it matches my opinion and background)

author: RJSV
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 07, 2022, 02:38:52 pm
content: Yes, you can't just be making up, the proverbial UNICORN with golden poop...My favorite example, comes out of my own 'shortcomings'; that being a 'POCKET SHOWER'.It didn't have to be built to recognize the looks, market, and attractive package possible.Turns out, there IS a similar product, in form of a CAMP SHOWER, that's a solar warmed bag you can hang from a tree branch, out at some backwoods backpacking trek.The engineering would have been centered on little pumps, and the user buttons and utility screen.But point is very similar, to what you guys just said; It was easy to propose, and outline, A device that could work, in confines of a train bathroom, for example.(Just for quick armpit swipes).The practical outlay of cash required, PROBABLY staggering, for a decent development effort, along with 'start-up hassles...