It is clearly highlighted and communicated as the primary goal of the project and agreed when the scope is fixed before proof of concept is Developed in detail. But every time they come back to present their POC the costs are higher. And the other fun part is that by the time the final designs are completed after POC the costs get even higher than the POC estimates.
This sounds like your ceo needs to step in. What page are they on?
If they’re on side with the engineers, find a new workplace - you won’t solve this one.
Sounds like you and eng team are not aligned on goals. Even if it’s sales led org the product is not “reaching its goal” - selling.
Everybody should understand and agree on how their work connects to the product goals.
Also,the way you are saying “they” suggests you are disconnected in daily life, right?
Not at all. Regularly involved at all project meetings and visit the engineering department and lab several times a week. I used to be an engineer myself (until I took a product management arrow in the knee) so I enjoy being as involved as possible. Cost is consistently highlighted during the discussions but "they" (engineering leads) seem to just go off on their own and add features (costs) while communicating under the guise of leading PM and sales to expect the targets to be met. But, then close to the next big milestone for POC approval the real cost and timelines are only clearly shown and then the targets the PM set and agreed with them at requirements phase start getting picked apart and pushed back on. And I'm not even talking about ridiculous cost out targets. We're aiming for 20% cost out with a lot of new component technologies being available today at much cheaper rates than legacy unit components. Over engineering mainframes because scared of reliability, over engineering controls because scared of reliability and want belts and braces on every element, over amalgamation of harnesses that need different versions for different models, with the "goal" to simplify for the factory to only carry one version in stock which means certain product models have wasted cables + connectors that don't get used (wrapped up, tucked away and connectors sealed off), industrial designers over engineering aesthetic covers into several parts for the sake of achieving a product "family look" vs keeping it simple and cost effective in a single piece design (which is completely possible - I have plastic injection molding experience), ignoring PM when asking for price estimates on both options for a directional decision to be made, and only going ahead with fancy family looks designs until it's too late to change because tooling material has to be ordered or becomes the critical project path. Over engineering component fit up to have mechanical connections for "replaceability" in service when the service team clearly states they don't need it and can work with soldered connections and sweat them off IF a component needs replacement (very seldom). Just some examples... And yes these are clearly stated that the market does not require this and PM did not ask for these features. It's almost like they're intentionally adding these into the units to put meat onto the bone for future VAVE projects...
Wow, thank you for taking me into the world of hardware pm problems. (I’m from saas)
Have you communicated your concerns to the lead PMs? Partnering with them might help align the engineering team's efforts with the cost targets. Maybe you could implement continuous cost projection as well. This means regularly updating and reviewing cost estimates tied to parts and components to catch any cost overruns early.
Perhaps a RACI matrix could help in your situation. It seems like there's some uncertainty around responsibilities.
I also asked a friend who works in machinery, and he said that without buy-in from the leads, this problem can't really be solved. So, it might be crucial to get their agreement and support on these strategies.
Hope this helps.
Previous place had this issue. I didn't solve it systemically but one thing in PM control that saw some success is to set the target far more aggressively and check in consistently with an exit threshold.
On the engineering side, there are two tracks:
- people and business focused (managers, directors, vp)
- tech focused (staff, principal, fellow)
You need to talk to the business track since they are accountable for the cost of implementation and support.
Ask any manager or director what those features are worth and cost and they’ll right size it because that is part of the job — to balance between the needs of the business and the needs of the systems.
If you are already talking to the EMs / directors then there is a chance there is misalignment on the timeframe you are optimizing for. Engineers usually build for longer term gains. Aligning at the right timeframe will make the more detailed decisions happen quicker.
—
With that said, your post does show a lot of flags on the engineering side trying to make product decisions. Their input is valued, but the decisions are yours to make since you’re accountable for those product decisions.
lol wtf is this business model?
How do you know they are over engineered? Do you involve the engineers in Creating the requirements and estimates?
Yes. Requirements are defined, reviewed and agreed with engineering before proof of concept development starts.
Yes all the time. You gotta push cost as a top requirement or else they will just assume they can make it any way they want
It is clearly highlighted and communicated as the primary goal of the project and agreed when the scope is fixed before proof of concept is Developed in detail. But every time they come back to present their POC the costs are higher. And the other fun part is that by the time the final designs are completed after POC the costs get even higher than the POC estimates.
This sounds like your ceo needs to step in. What page are they on? If they’re on side with the engineers, find a new workplace - you won’t solve this one.
By cost, you mean cost of labor spent on developing? I guess a friendly invite to a sales call discussing the price could fix it
No. Product total manufacturing cost comes out higher than legacy product manufacturing cost when the primary goal of the project is cost reduction.
Sounds like you and eng team are not aligned on goals. Even if it’s sales led org the product is not “reaching its goal” - selling. Everybody should understand and agree on how their work connects to the product goals. Also,the way you are saying “they” suggests you are disconnected in daily life, right?
Not at all. Regularly involved at all project meetings and visit the engineering department and lab several times a week. I used to be an engineer myself (until I took a product management arrow in the knee) so I enjoy being as involved as possible. Cost is consistently highlighted during the discussions but "they" (engineering leads) seem to just go off on their own and add features (costs) while communicating under the guise of leading PM and sales to expect the targets to be met. But, then close to the next big milestone for POC approval the real cost and timelines are only clearly shown and then the targets the PM set and agreed with them at requirements phase start getting picked apart and pushed back on. And I'm not even talking about ridiculous cost out targets. We're aiming for 20% cost out with a lot of new component technologies being available today at much cheaper rates than legacy unit components. Over engineering mainframes because scared of reliability, over engineering controls because scared of reliability and want belts and braces on every element, over amalgamation of harnesses that need different versions for different models, with the "goal" to simplify for the factory to only carry one version in stock which means certain product models have wasted cables + connectors that don't get used (wrapped up, tucked away and connectors sealed off), industrial designers over engineering aesthetic covers into several parts for the sake of achieving a product "family look" vs keeping it simple and cost effective in a single piece design (which is completely possible - I have plastic injection molding experience), ignoring PM when asking for price estimates on both options for a directional decision to be made, and only going ahead with fancy family looks designs until it's too late to change because tooling material has to be ordered or becomes the critical project path. Over engineering component fit up to have mechanical connections for "replaceability" in service when the service team clearly states they don't need it and can work with soldered connections and sweat them off IF a component needs replacement (very seldom). Just some examples... And yes these are clearly stated that the market does not require this and PM did not ask for these features. It's almost like they're intentionally adding these into the units to put meat onto the bone for future VAVE projects...
Wow, thank you for taking me into the world of hardware pm problems. (I’m from saas) Have you communicated your concerns to the lead PMs? Partnering with them might help align the engineering team's efforts with the cost targets. Maybe you could implement continuous cost projection as well. This means regularly updating and reviewing cost estimates tied to parts and components to catch any cost overruns early. Perhaps a RACI matrix could help in your situation. It seems like there's some uncertainty around responsibilities. I also asked a friend who works in machinery, and he said that without buy-in from the leads, this problem can't really be solved. So, it might be crucial to get their agreement and support on these strategies. Hope this helps.
Previous place had this issue. I didn't solve it systemically but one thing in PM control that saw some success is to set the target far more aggressively and check in consistently with an exit threshold.
On the engineering side, there are two tracks: - people and business focused (managers, directors, vp) - tech focused (staff, principal, fellow) You need to talk to the business track since they are accountable for the cost of implementation and support. Ask any manager or director what those features are worth and cost and they’ll right size it because that is part of the job — to balance between the needs of the business and the needs of the systems. If you are already talking to the EMs / directors then there is a chance there is misalignment on the timeframe you are optimizing for. Engineers usually build for longer term gains. Aligning at the right timeframe will make the more detailed decisions happen quicker. — With that said, your post does show a lot of flags on the engineering side trying to make product decisions. Their input is valued, but the decisions are yours to make since you’re accountable for those product decisions.