Science explores the possibility and creates the availability.
Engineering improves the practicality, economically.
All for business who knows how to coordinate things together. hahahaha
Don’t get me wrong, I’m interested in business and there’s nothing wrong with business by itself. But there is something funny with the people who carry the business flag… thinking they actually outsmart the technicians, the engineers, the scientists, the doctors… etc.
Even within management, there is a small few who are the real smart leaders. You’re lucky if you happen to meet this small few in your life.
My point is, the real management and the real leader of a division must have quite a background of something in that discipline. You can’t grab a master in botany to suddenly lead the textile division. Unless the particular textile division deals a lot with the origin, like how a cotton was processed and so on, there is absolutely no logical step in putting someone else just to broaden the experience or diversify the skills of a certain manager.
Kenneth Brill, a senior engineer and founder of Uptime Institute recently wrote a commentary entitled “BP’s Real Cause of Accident on Forbes about 5 reliability principles. His second states: “Junior management error is the most frequent root cause. Why protect against something that probably won’t happen?” while referring to going from “mostly working” to “never fails”.
“Never-fails” equipment is very expensive to build and run. Does it take high level engineering to go from 90% to 99.9% reliable… or high level management? Or both?