My experience is that contract work like this ends up being done by ordertakers; the contractors execute the design, no matter how stupid.
Whereas, the best performing companies hire engineers who are empowered to understand the goals, understand the problem, and push back when appropriate.
The results are much better, because the people working on each system, understand it deeply and care.
A low-cost contractor isn’t allowed to care. They aren’t even allowed to talk to somebody who matters.
Comments
My experience is that contract work like this ends up being done by ordertakers; the contractors execute the design, no matter how stupid.
Whereas, the best performing companies hire engineers who are empowered to understand the goals, understand the problem, and push back when appropriate.
The results are much better, because the people working on each system, understand it deeply and care.
A low-cost contractor isn’t allowed to care. They aren’t even allowed to talk to somebody who matters.
This is a management disgrace.
Often this is the entire point. The in-house staff are seen as obstructionists, whereas outsourcers provide the equivalent of meat robots.
Many managers far prefer the latter over the former.
They prefer the latter because the mere existence of the knowledgable, informed, involved engineer questions the need for the manager at all.
I think that this a fair take, especially about the possible power structure.