Over-the-top security controls can do more harm than good.

Is the bureaucracy of security making us all less secure? That is a question I find myself asking increasingly as layer after layer of bureaucracy in the form of forms, protocols and additional steps makes quoting, receiving orders, building product and then shipping and invoicing more cumbersome and time-consuming.

Don't get me wrong: I believe in quality and security, especially in the world we are living in and with the cyber-reliant environment we must utilize to communicate and share data among people and businesses. Increasingly, however, some measures that are intended to increase security instead have the effect of wasting time, adding cost and extending lead times to deliver much-needed product.

Prepare yourself for unusual circuit patterns.

There is no free lunch when it comes to populating a printed circuit board. Every part has a cost and a failure rate. One of the first projects of my career was a pulse-Doppler surveillance radar called PSTAR. In typical military jargon, that acronym stands for “Portable Search and Target Acquisition Radar.”

My part was the amplifier module that was subdivided into various blocks for easy field service. One of the sub-blocks was a 20dB coupler. It lived inside its own hermetically sealed aluminum housing. The PCB inside had two traces that ran alongside each other, giving the circuit four ports with feedthroughs to the outside world. SMA connectors and semi-rigid cables wired the various modules together.

My responsibilities included the little housing for the coupler, the overall mechanical packaging and all the semi-rigid cable drawings, as well as the RF amplifier. The control board was the only part designed by an external vendor. Meanwhile, the PCB for the coupler had no more than a single 50Ω termination resistor and the feedthrough connectors. We did not yet have PCB design software at that company, so this was done with AutoCAD.

Generative AI could transform product design, but raises questions about creative ownership.

The recent ousting and subsequent rehabilitation of OpenAI's CEO added some theater to the debate and buzz around artificial intelligence. AI, it seems, is everywhere and in everything from our smartwatches and phones to automobiles, data centers and factories.

With the explosion in generative AI like OpenAI's ChatGPT, it's also taking on creative roles that we might have assumed would remain the preserve of human intellect. For a while now, it has been possible to generate realistic images of human faces – not copies but unique individuals that never existed except inside a computer. Also, in 2023, the fashion brand Levi's became one of the first companies to suggest it would use AI-generated clothing models. These are expected to improve the shopping experience for customers by helping them assess clothes on likenesses that have a similar body shape and size to their own. Of course, it's also likely to help brands cut marketing and merchandising costs.

Let's set aside the prospects for the first AI catwalk model, or photographer, or bestselling novelist, and consider activities at the border between engineering creativity and design automation.

Looking within the organization can yield unexpected benefits.

Benchmarking is an integral part of any continuous improvement strategy. There are typically three types of benchmarking: cross-industry, competitive and internal. Cross-industry benchmarking looks at similar processes in different industries and often delivers the biggest breakthroughs because it helps companies identify processes and systems not widely used in their industries. One example is Southwest Airlines benchmarking NASCAR pit crews’ performance. Competitive benchmarking looks at data from competitors. The challenge is that direct competitors are not likely to share at the level possible with a cross-industry benchmarking exercise, and given the similarity of processes, the best-case improvement is often just being as good as your best competitor.

Internal benchmarking can take two forms. In the first form, processes and systems are evaluated against Lean manufacturing standards to target areas of improvement. In the second form, different facilities of a company are benchmarked to find improvements based on differences in processes and systems.