Engineers Vs. "Joe Maintenance"

I believe this thread has the wrong title. It should be “Programmers Vs Joe Maintenance”

Programmers are not necessarily Engineers. Too many so-called “programmers” cannot engineer anything. They know nothing about motors, designing systems, sizing wiring or conduits, etc. Don’t get me wrong, programmers fill a valuable niche but they are simply another cog in the wheel.

As a startup person for several system integrators I have been left holding the bag way too many times trying to start up a piece of sh@#t program “guaranteed” to work by an overpaid, over-rated, pompous programmer.

Whether the program was written in ladder, STL, or “C” made no difference. They were poorly written, tested, and not documented sufficiently.

Thanks for letting me rant a little.

Well said dogleg, Machine control is not just about writing code you need to understand the mechanical & electrical side of it as well, I not saying that all programmers do not have those skills but I have been allocated commissioning jobs (you know the ones, the original company is late or having problems and the customer pulls you in). In many situations like this, it has been a case of the software guys sit on their bums in an office and they have engineers to commission the systems. This has happened in 90% of the time I have been asked to help on another companies project, this is not easy, the customer is likely to claim your costs back from the original supplier, you become disliked both by the supplier & their engineers, you hit the ground running without prior knowledge of the system & this type of staff allocation is a recipe for disaster. I can think of 7 times where it was not just a case of not enough staff on the suppliers part, indeed in most cases, it was the poor guy having to do the commissioning was given no support from his own software guys who lacked understanding of the plant or continually coded poor software. going back to ST, it was to be a standard to harmonise plc software, currently, most PLC manufacturers have their own special blocks to keep it compatible with the original LAD/CSF/STL etc. however, this then makes it un-compatible in many ways, I do believe the next generation comming from the manufacturers will address these issues. Lets face it, how many times have you seen on this site people questioning AB terms XIC/XIO compared to NC/NO. Anyway this is my last post on this subject, it's been interesting but now getting a little repetative, keep on trucking you guys, will still read them but resist the temptation to reply or rant..

dogleg43 said:

As a startup person for several system integrators I have been left holding the bag way too many times trying to start up a piece of sh@#t program “guaranteed” to work by an overpaid, over-rated, pompous programmer.

Whether the program was written in ladder, STL, or “C” made no difference. They were poorly written, tested, and not documented sufficiently.

Thanks for letting me rant a little.

Click to expand...

'guaranteed to work' is a *BIG* red flag. I guess 'guaranteed to work' is technically possible ... if this is the 50th identical installation of an off-the-shelf system ... maybe.

*FAR* more likely, hubris is involved. Nuf said!

Although the opposite of pompous (humble), I am the one that has the guys in the field. Makes me wonder if they might be thinking this about me. Could you please expand on your statement:

dogleg43 said:

and not documented sufficiently.

Click to expand...

I am not sure I know what you mean. Don't take this as being critical, it's a learning thing for me.

Thanks

ceilingwalker said:

Although the opposite of pompous (humble), I am the one that has the guys in the field. Makes me wonder if they might be thinking this about me. Could you please expand on your statement:



I am not sure I know what you mean. Don't take this as being critical, it's a learning thing for me.

Thanks

Click to expand...

No problem.

Poorly documented as in the logic lacking proper descriptions, no rung comments, etc. and expecting someone to interpret what they’ve done.

Another pet peeve is when the programmer shows up to do their thing and they would immediately expect me to get them a chair and table, or lacking that park themselves right in front of the panel because they only had the 4-ft power cord that came w/their laptop. Hey, pack your own darn lightweight extension cord. Just generally being a primal donna.

After programming a CompactLogix I can see why you yankees are reluctant towards ST. Not only do you have to pay extra to be able to program ST, but the damn piece of **** doesn't even show the state/value of the variable "in the code", but instead lists them all in a table below the code so you have to scroll through and look all the variables up.
So yes, your claim that it's easier to trace a program in LD is very true as long as you're dealing with Rockwell.

theColonel26 said:

The problem is that they simply don't want to learn, it's not that they can't.

The only thing that makes them stupid is that they choose not to try. It's willful ignorance.

Click to expand...

Ding, ding, ding!!!! We have a winner!! Yes, yes, that!!!!

I cannot even describe how frustrated I get at our technicians for just that - they won't even try to learn!! That's all I ask, just try! Make at least a half-assed effort before calling me. I don't get mad because they don't know how. I get mad because they don't try. No one taught me how to do it. I figured it out, and you (maintenance and techs) can too.

"Oh no, its in ST (or some other 61131 language outside LD)!!! Call the engineer".

These are "skilled", Senior Technicians mind you!

Rant over...

for now.

geniusintraining said:

Yep this has been beaten to death over the past years.... keep in mind that you are writing the program for someone else and they are paying you to do it so yes you should keep them in mind when writing the program.

"Just because you can doesn't mean you should"

Why over complicate a program makes no sense to me, should it be longer? if the customer is paying you to make it so bubba can read it easier then it should be done as such, if they want a working program and dont care then make it how you want but this is a conversation that you need to have with the end user, they are buying the program and have to maintain it.

Click to expand...

No argument about that. The customer is king. If they want the entire machine or process in one language, then that's what you do, no questions asked.

My argument is when there is no set language to use, and the customer doesn't care. Or maybe you are doing an in-house machine build for the company you work for and your boss tells you that he doesn't care what programming language you use, just as long as there's a working machine when you're done. When that's the case, right, wrong, or indifferent, I don't give two sh!#!s about maintenance or technicians. I'm using whatever language is best for the programming task. Hell, I could write it all in LD and they'd still be calling me, so I figure why bother??? A machine that I code will typically have all of the following in the project - LD, ST, and FBD. There will also be custom functions and custom FB's that I wrote.

Friedrich said:

After programming a CompactLogix I can see why you yankees are reluctant towards ST. Not only do you have to pay extra to be able to program ST, but the damn piece of **** doesn't even show the state/value of the variable "in the code", but instead lists them all in a table below the code so you have to scroll through and look all the variables up.
So yes, your claim that it's easier to trace a program in LD is very true as long as you're dealing with Rockwell.

Click to expand...

Uh oh......you didn't just go there did you?? You're gonna rile a lot of AB slappies on this forum. But, I do agree with you nonetheless.

Oh my, I feel triggered. I want to reply and comment on almost every reply on this thread.
My two cents on the programming subject: From what i have noticed there is a big difference between machine OEMs and and integrators. For example, when we add new equipment/machines to our production floor, the OEM code is garbage hard to read, very little comments, not intuitive, etc. Thats because its cookie cutter copy and past and its makes them more money. On the other hand, our plant contracts a local automation firm to handle our large scale control systems. They are amazing! Couldnt ask for anything better. Its because they get paid well to do so. Wish they could both operate that way. I also wasnt aware i get a say in how our machines are programmed, news to me...(see engineer section below)

On the Engineer/Programmer vs Joe Maintenance front:
I work in the food/bev industry and all of our programs are locked down, we are dealing with food not just chunks of steel etc. We have the same Bubbas on the floor doing maintenance that are suppose to be senior technicians that call me to turn the air back on for them, or move a photoeye that they knocked loose while doing "maintenance".I believe there is a missing link in lots of manufacturing facilities. Most places have operators/maintenance/electrician/IT/Engineers... Correct? None of which probably have much real programming experience. Thats where to "Automation Technician" comes in. These kind of people are a needle in the haystack of course but you have to have them IMO. Keep Bubba out of the programs.

And dont get me started on "Engineers". We have several that couldnt engineer a paper airplane. These are degreed/licensed engineers. They write checks to people who actually engineer ****, thats all. The only good engineer ive worked with didnt even have a degree, one of the smartest guys ive ever met.

Resisting the urge to post..........it's hard!

dogleg43 said:

As a startup person for several system integrators I have been left holding the bag way too many times trying to start up a piece of sh@#t program “guaranteed” to work by an overpaid, over-rated, pompous programmer.

Click to expand...

I find it's easy to complain about the "pompous" programmer, but have you wrote software for something you didn't have near you to test before releasing? I was in that seat once and it's downright impossible to do that unless the gear you are controlling is near you. All you can do is give it a shot at having all the bits ready and then tweak out in the field.

parky said:

In many situations like this, it has been a case of the software guys sit on their bums in an office and they have engineers to commission the systems.

Click to expand...

Have you considered they're in the office because their boss doesn't want an expensive asset out in the field?

Friedrich said:

After programming a CompactLogix I can see why you yankees are reluctant towards ST. Not only do you have to pay extra to be able to program ST, but the damn piece of **** doesn't even show the state/value of the variable "in the code", but instead lists them all in a table below the code so you have to scroll through and look all the variables up.
So yes, your claim that it's easier to trace a program in LD is very true as long as you're dealing with Rockwell.

Click to expand...

That was fixed in v31, it's quite similar to Codesys now in the way it displays tag values. But you still got to pay for some odd reason.

Interesting thread.
Makes me question my very existence....... Not really.
I'm no all star programmer. I do program for living, every day, for 14 years now. I started as an Industrial elec. learned programming from day one. Studied and started a career in programming and control panel building. My tittle where I work is Automation Tech. I do mixing rooms, filling machines, packaging equipment, some refrigeration systems and lately some forestry equipment... cool work!
I never consider myself an all star but I know I'm good at "what I do". However, I know when to ask for help. We have a ton of OEM equipment here. Some of it, when the company requests changes, I simply say that I'll call the OEM. Simple. I know how to NOT get myself in over my head. I only take projects that I know I can handle and I don't think I have ever had a call at 3AM to respond to a "machine logic" problem. Maybe a VFD here or there or a failed HMI, but very very rarely would I have to troubleshoot logic or PLC stuff after hours.

So, Joe maintenance or engineer, that's in the eye of the beholder. To me, the title engineer means very little, as I have had guys come here that are engineer grade, ring and all, who I thought was going to teach ME something, I was excited for. Both of those instances lead to me realizing this guy is **** *** and the company let them go before any more damage and chaos could happen. It just takes thought about every step you take and never rushing through anything to not dump $2000 worth of raspberry pie filling on the floor, or shutting down a system due to downloading to the wrong controller..... twice in one day! Some of these guys can't even read a multi-meter to verify line voltage on a contactor.

As far as upgrading. I'm almost 20 years into a career, Iv studied for a long time to get to where I am. Could I get better, sure, could I lean more advanced programming, sure, but I'm tired of learning and studying. I want hobbies and to enjoy my life away from machines. Others see that as lazy or an unwillingness to learn. I call it being set up in my career and a want to have a life outside of the production nightmare that never stops!

I envy the gentleman talking about sitting in his deer stand. You really need an Ipad Air.... Its saved me trips to the plant on a few occasions while camping or four wheeling. I haul one around everywhere with me, it sucks and is difficult to work with but as I said, its saved me a couple times from leaving a "tree stand situation", that should not be interrupted.

janner_10 said:

But you still got to pay for some odd reason.

Click to expand...

That's Rockwell's whole business model...