Embedded Systems Conference
Breaking News
Newest First | Oldest First | Threaded View
<<   <   Page 5 / 5
User Rank
ericha2   7/21/2014 2:26:32 PM
I personally like ROI better for comparing individual project, as the ratio lets you combine multiple projects for better return.  Given the scenario of N projects of which you don't have funding for all of them, however, I think NPV of sets of projects--each of which maxes out the funding available (each of which has a positive NPV)--is the best comparison.  I wouldn't try all possible combinations; I'd start with the ones that have the highest ROI and come up with several possible groupings that uses up the available funding, then pick the one with the highest NPV.

This assumes, of course, that each project is risk-free.  That is rarely the case.  As part of this exercise I'd try to make some reasonable guesses about how risky each project is.  Is this something the team has done before (not very risky)?  Is it new to the team (pretty risky)?  Is it new to the world (very risky)?  What's the likelyhood that a competitor will emerge that drops your sales--do you have strong barriers to entry (such as patents, regulations, customer relationships, or proprietary technology or distribution channel  that's hard to duplicate), or is this an area that a strong competitor would naturally want to enter?  What's the likelyhood that there is a supplier gets too much control and sucks up all the profit (think Intel and Microsoft for PCs).  Discounting ROI & NPV for risk is not an easy task--there is no simple formula you can use.  But to not include this as part of the analysis neglects what happens in the real world!

I also personally like the idea of doing some portfolio-style analysis on projects--some portion are low risk with low return, and some portion are higher risk with higher return.  If the high-return projects pay off, that's great.  If not, you've still got the low-risk projects to keep you going.

User Rank
Re: Engineering and Economics
Measurement.Blues   7/21/2014 12:25:56 PM
I'd like to amend GarySXT's statement to say:

Financially successful engineering is as much about good economics and good marketing as it is good technology.

I argue that you can have good engineering without financial success. remember Beta video tape?

User Rank
Sanjib.A   7/21/2014 12:17:42 PM
Exactly!! I tried doing MBA part-time while doing job but found finance a boring subject. Mathematical problems finance were interesting to solve but I found accounting horribly confusing...the balance sheet...oh!! I had to give-up for other reasons, but I was happy that I got rid of that...after all I like to spend time with electronics during that extra time became available...

But I agree that to be a good engineering manager or an entrepreneur, once should have good understanding of finance.

Larry Desjardin
User Rank
Re: Engineering and Economics
Larry Desjardin   7/21/2014 11:40:45 AM
Well said.  It is at the nexus of technology, markets, and economics.

User Rank
Engineering and Economics
GarySXT   7/21/2014 11:38:16 AM
Good engineering is as much about good economics as it is good technology.


User Rank
antedeluvian   7/21/2014 9:35:34 AM

I actually though it would be a good idea to get an MBA part time.

When I finsihed my engineering degree, since I finished so far back in the pack, I decided that I wouldn't be a good engineer. I then did an MBA. It seemed to me an engineer as a manager was a good plan since a) you could get further organizationally and b) there were always managers who needed to understand what the engineers were doing.

Circumstances conspired and got me into engineering rather than management, and I have only recently moved part-time into management.

User Rank
MeasurementBlues   7/21/2014 8:55:48 AM
I actually thought it would be a good idea to get an MBA part time. My best classes were economics and the worst were accounting and business law. Coming from an engineering background, I found the whole cencept of law illogical.

The required finance class was easy, but boring.

So I ended up taking a job as an editor.

<<   <   Page 5 / 5

As data rates begin to move beyond 25 Gbps channels, new problems arise. Getting to 50 Gbps channels might not be possible with the traditional NRZ (2-level) signaling. PAM4 lets data rates double with only a small increase in channel bandwidth by sending two bits per symbol. But, it brings new measurement and analysis problems. Signal integrity sage Ransom Stephens will explain how PAM4 differs from NRZ and what to expect in design, measurement, and signal analysis.

Datasheets.com Parts Search

185 million searchable parts
(please enter a part number or hit search to begin)
Like Us on Facebook
Special Video Section
The LTC®6363 is a low power, low noise, fully differential ...
Vincent Ching, applications engineer at Avago Technologies, ...
The LT®6375 is a unity-gain difference amplifier which ...
The LTC®4015 is a complete synchronous buck controller/ ...
The LTC®2983 measures a wide variety of temperature sensors ...
The LTC®3886 is a dual PolyPhase DC/DC synchronous ...
The LTC®2348-18 is an 18-bit, low noise 8-channel ...
The LT®3042 is a high performance low dropout linear ...
Chwan-Jye Foo (C.J Foo), product marketing manager for ...
The LT®3752/LT3752-1 are current mode PWM controllers ...
LED lighting is an important feature in today’s and future ...
Active balancing of series connected battery stacks exists ...
After a four-year absence, Infineon returns to Mobile World ...
A laptop’s 65-watt adapter can be made 6 times smaller and ...
An industry network should have device and data security at ...
The LTC2975 is a four-channel PMBus Power System Manager ...
In this video, a new high speed CMOS output comparator ...
The LT8640 is a 42V, 5A synchronous step-down regulator ...
The LTC2000 high-speed DAC has low noise and excellent ...
How do you protect the load and ensure output continues to ...