This is a discussion topic about how long engineers should work on any given project and the benefits of engineers communicating with others. The Not-invented-here (NIH) article tries to understand the value of keeping engineers working on long term projects for up to a decade. The article indicates that engineers working on long term projects (5-10 years) have decreased productivity as time goes by.
The posts for this discussion should attempt to answer the below questions:
- Why does the performance of engineers decrease over time when working on a long-term project? What factors affect this decrease in productivity?
- How long should engineers spend on a specific project?
- Does the age of engineers working on a project matter? Are young engineers more productive than older engineers?
- How to go about rotating engineers on projects within an organization?
- How can engineers working on long term projects communicate better within the organization to help increase project productivity (engineers communicating with project managers, engineers communicating with other engineers within the organization)?
- What kind of external communications (with universities, colleges, or consultants) can be carried out to improve the productivity of a project?
- Is it worthwhile to provide engineers working on long term projects with on the job training in terms of their engineering project (e.g. reading new research based on their project)?
- Should organizations intentionally destabilize successful teams to avoid NIH, even if it causes short-term disruption
- Is NIH more of a danger today, given how much specialization and rapid tech change is a constant for many industries?
- How can managers/leaders distinguish between NIH-driven rejection and healthy skepticism of external research?
Get fast, custom help from our academic experts, any time of day.
Place your order now for a similar assignment and have exceptional work written by our team of experts.
Secure 100% Original On Time Delivery