Should quitting team member be allowed to finish part?

[fsanonymous]

Ethical Question:

A senior on our team has decided not only to quit FSAE, but his mechanical engineering education also. He would have graduated this spring.

We are an excellent team, and maybe this year we've had the least amount of teaming problems ever. I speak as a senior and 4th year member myself. The FSAE program has been at our school for many years now.

This quitting team member was engineering lead on one of the major systems on our car. He didn't contribute much in our fall (design) semester. No solid or parametric modeling was done by him, and all analysis (Abaqus) was actually done for him by a junior member.

He did some hand calculations and determined why a part fatigued on last year's car. So he did decide to tractor factor it up. Once this first iteration was found to be strong enough using Abaqus, he made no more iterations. This was the only part he designed in a whole system.

He's been on the team about 3 years and does know how to machine parts really well (its what he does at his part time job).

He wants to machine this part that he "designed." In my book, I believe that the work you have to do for these teams is a privelege. It would be nice for someone to make parts and decrease the always heavy workload, but I can't justify this case.

Would you let this person make the part?

[fsanonymous]

Ethical Question:

A senior on our team has decided not only to quit FSAE, but his mechanical engineering education also. He would have graduated this spring.

We are an excellent team, and maybe this year we've had the least amount of teaming problems ever. I speak as a senior and 4th year member myself. The FSAE program has been at our school for many years now.

This quitting team member was engineering lead on one of the major systems on our car. He didn't contribute much in our fall (design) semester. No solid or parametric modeling was done by him, and all analysis (Abaqus) was actually done for him by a junior member.

He did some hand calculations and determined why a part fatigued on last year's car. So he did decide to tractor factor it up. Once this first iteration was found to be strong enough using Abaqus, he made no more iterations. This was the only part he designed in a whole system.

He's been on the team about 3 years and does know how to machine parts really well (its what he does at his part time job).

He wants to machine this part that he "designed." In my book, I believe that the work you have to do for these teams is a privelege. It would be nice for someone to make parts and decrease the always heavy workload, but I can't justify this case.

Would you let this person make the part?

[fsanonymous]

He said this part would be mad the first week of January. Still no part.

[Hector]

This isn't the place to discuss silly little quibbles. Makes FS look pretty bad IMO. Internal conflicts are something that you have to handle inside and outside of FS (in that mysterious thing called "the real world").

We're always strapped for labor. If someone makes good parts and wants to machine them, I say feel free. Heck, the person doesn't even have to be on my team. If a machinist walked in my door and wanted to machine parts I would give him drawings and material in a heartbeat.

[MalcolmG]

Couldn't agree more - for the answer to your question I would be going to the team and seeing how they feel, not an internet forum

[Anvit Garg]

If you only have one flaky member, then you should be proud.

One thing I have learned in engineering and also as a graduating senior this May, is the abundance of flakes in engineering.

You find the most reliable people in odd places...

[rjwoods77]

Grow a pair of balls to do what you have already convinced yourself you need to do. God people are so soft these days. You must have had parents that told you to behave when you were bad instead of slapping you upside the head. The meek are inheriting the earthhttp://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

[Hector]

And no one has ever accused Rob of being meek.

[js10coastr]

As team leader (I'm assuming that's you), you have to make that decision. Think about the message you're sending, but also the consequences. It's one of the harder parts, but the joys more than make up for being a leader.

I would look to see what the team needs. Do you need to send a message? Do you need to get parts done? etc etc. I'd probably run my decision by a second in command to make sure it made sense...

[fsanonymous]

Maybe this is being a little meek on my part, but I believe in handling these things as professionally as possible. I believe the best engineering management/leadership tries to find ways to run the organization as horizontally as possible. I've tried to have as much buy-in from the whole team in all our decisions.

My opinion is resolving silly little quibbles though the efforts of many is much more important than making FSAE look bad. I would wager that most experienced leaders reading this know that quibbles happen in every organization. So can we assume all organizations look bad? It is forums like this where leaders and teams can learn and develop more than the teams that ignore quibbles.

I also believe that teams always looking internally for solutions (technical or non) develop inside the box thinking. I'm only using this forum as a tool to access external perspectives. All of yours are appreciated.

Thanks.

[rjwoods77]

The is nothing professional about asking people you don't know about a situation they don't know about and people they don't know. Your advisors and team are the ones to turn to. Anyone outside of that is gossip and whining on your part.

A team member holding a team hostage, which is exactly what this is, is a completely non-negotiable situation and needs to be dealt with the highest urgency. Every day you let this go by is screws you even worse because a day isn't just a day. The closer you get to comp a days value becomes greater. University of Buffalo was held hostage by a EE guy who did the injection wiring and ECU for 3-4 months and in the end really screwed the team from doing better than they did. Unfortunately at the time it was felt that it could have not been done without him but in the end it ended up the opposite. ME guys ended up learning how to do ECU trouble shooting and got through it. Point being is that if he was cut out early due to his consistant deadline blowing and empty promises then the more learning and better results would have been the end outcome.

Once again, do what you feel is best for the team and what you know you should do. Decisiveness is the opposite of being meek. Cowboy up.

[Horace]

no

[Charlie]

Do whatever is best for the team. Put politics and grudges aside.

[Yellow Ranger]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Charlie:
Do whatever is best for the team. Put politics and grudges aside. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

agreed- especially for what's best for the future of the team

if you think you'll get a job where everyone gets along and likes eachother, think again. Anyone who has been in a position of 'leadership' knows you'll have to work with people who never fully agree with eachother- but you must get them to put their own differences aside in order to satisfy the greater good - finish the damn car.