When Is Tried and True Better than New?

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Every time we get a new management team or person, they want to try everything that has failed in the past. This, I expect is due to the fact that they have not tried and failed at it yet.. Needless to say they fail too.

New and Improved usually means there are no interchangeable parts and most likely means there are no parts available anyway.

Low Maintenance usually means it's impossible to repair if broken.

Years of Development usually means one finally worked.

Major Technological Breakthrough usually means the guts are still the same but the skin looks really high tech.

I still like my Roomba idea for airports.

Windows 2000/XP versus Vista.

Management always confuses change with improvement, if it ain't broke why fix it?

Very true. Best way to deal with something that ain't broke is to break it.

As my Grandma used to say about things mechanical, "when something's out of whack it obviously needs some, so give it a good one"!

We need more engineers like her.

My mom never did use the mechanical dough roller I made for her.

Wuz it for the right kind of dough?

I think Dutchy deserves a Good Answer. I agree that there are two sides to this issue. High tech, high cost, high headache solutions should not be used for the sake of being "new and improved". However, I have also seen it where the company has been forced to struggle for years with solutions that sort of work, using low tech, high cost, high headache solutions, because that's the way it's always been done. Besides, they tried the other ideas years ago (with inferior products, inferior controls, etc.) and they didn't work. Never mind that you have been able to solve this problem at a previous employer using these "new, untried" techniques. They already know it won't work, so why waste their money and your time?

GA from me, Dutchy.

I have made a career of improving things. I believe very strongly that "There is always a better way". That is called progress and evolution. Not being satisfied with the tried and true. Not being complacent that "this is as good as it gets". Yes, absolutley, many many attempts at improving something tried & true, end up in failure or mediocrity. But many times they don't, and an excellent improvement is made.

"But this is the way we've always done it"... that's another phrase that gets my goat. I hope I don't need to even elaborate on that one.

I could go on forever, with this question. My name of Out of Box Experience, should explain the reason for that.

So, to give my answer to the question... When is Tried and True Better than New?? When the New didn't work, obviously. Oftentimes it doesn't work. But sometimes it does. That's what makes it worth trying.

I agree from an engineering point of view, but a manager or even a politician has other motives to make a change, how many times has management not tried to introduce a "better" planning program or drawing program to "improve" effectivity? Before in my company we switched electric scheme program, the previous program was more flexible than the new one, only one example

Engineers can ask the question about better solutions. Too frequently, those in other fields don't even think about it. Example: Armored vehicles, which developed into tanks, were built in 1914, tested in battle in 1916, but not really adopted until 1918. They were developed by the British Navy, because the army was convinced they would never be as reliable as horses and didn't want them. Gen. Haig, the British commander, was a calvalryman who never actually visited the front (he believed that horses were resistant to machine gun bullets). When forced to use tanks, he regarded them as cavalry and sent them into battle with the horsemen. Very quickly, the tanks were all alone, with no infantry to protect them, so, of course, the results were not encourging. On July 4, 1918, the battle of Hamel, Gen. Monash demonstrated how to use tanks, infantry, artillery, and aircraft in a combined arms manner, and both Rommel and Guderian, German armored commanders in WW-2, credited Monash with having invented the blitzkrieg. (He captured Hamel in 93 minutes and was knighted by King George "on the battlefield", which had not happened since 1743)

If you read a history of WW-1 written by an Englishman, Monash may not be found in the index. Monash was distasteful to Englishmen. He was of German Jewish ancestry and Australian birth, not upper class English, a reservist, not a regular, and an engineer, not a cavalryman. He appreciated machinery, had experience leading men while building bridges and railroads, and he had a logical, methodical way of analysing the problems of winning the war. Up to July 1918, the British armies had lost about 3 men for every 2 Germans lost. On 8 August, Rawlinson's Fourth Army (Monash's Australian Corps with Americans and Canadians on the flanks) broke out of Amien and put the German army to flight, "A black day for the German Army," after which Ludendorf knew Germany would lose the war. They killed more than 60 thousand Germans, losing 5500 of their own men.

This was after 4 years of stalemate. To the high army officers the doctrine was: stick with the tried and true; if at first you don't suceed, try, try again, with more. It takes an engineer to say, "If at first your don't succeed, invent a better way."

A good working definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result each time.

I like where the last couple comments are going. I couldn't agree more.

It's a funny thing about this particular subject... it's been my experience that peoples opinions on this subject are very strong one way or the other, and that rarely can they be convinced of the opposing point of view, despite even the most blatant examples that prove them wrong. Due to the nature of my engineering and designing career, I have come up against "old timers" time and time again that had a heavy resentment of someone coming in (who was hired by upper management for just that reason) and try to expand their mind to newer and more modern methods of doing something that they have been doing for years.

Often these people have been at the same company, at the same job, for decades; with little exposure to new technologies, or to methods used by competitors. They very much believed in the "That's the way we've always done it" mantra.

I'm sure that this comment I'm writing will meet with opposition, in fact. Most likely by those very same type of people that I've just described.

If you're not improving... you are falling behind. Standing still is the same as falling behind.

Gave you a GA for Baseball Bat. Was looking for specifics. Twist is that what do you do, when what you did that worked, stops working? Let us consult with Del the Cat. Rate of fire for bows and arrows was higher, but firearms won out. Why? Firearms were adopted before their rate of fire was competitive with the rate of fire by bows and arrows. It is equally insane to abandon what works just because something new is flashy.

I'm completely not understanding why you are assuming that something new would be flashy. Can't it simply be better? As a matter of fact, it may even be less flashy. If it's an item, it may be more streamlined, or more economical, or use fewer parts, or have a lower failure rate. Or if it's a process, it may be less labor intensive, or easier on the muscles, or better on the environment.

There is absolutely no correlation between "new" and "flashy".

"Equally insane to abandon what works..." ??? Wooden ships worked. Horses worked. Factories filled with child labor during the industrial revolution worked. Slide rules worked (I'm guessing that yours is gathering dust, though. Am I wrong?)

So, I guess I'm not following your line of reasoning. Nearly every new improvement is considered to be flashy and new-fangled and a piece of crap, to SOMEBODY, SOMEWHERE who first sees it, if they are comfortable with the old tried and true. I hope I can say this without being offensive... but to me, that is pretty narrow minded thinking. And prejudgemental. Particularly for an engineer.

"Equally insane to abandon what works..." ??? I couldn't agree less.

Of course something new can be better. Why don't you agree that there are times when we forget what works? I originally asked in instances was something tried and true, better than new. Enviroman put a wooden baseball bat up against the aluminum baseball bat. I liked that as an example. It was specific.

Okay, I understand. In either case, I'll be the first to agree that there absolutely are no absolutes in any debate.

I was just trying to express the opinion that just because something works... that is no reason at all to not continue a quest for something that works even better.

To give you an example of the type of thing that you are looking for, I suppose I would put my '67 Fastback Mustang against any of the poor excuses for Mustangs that came out for the next quarter century after the 70's began.

"Rate of fire for bows and arrows was higher, but firearms won out. Why? "

Ben Franklin suggested that the revolutionary army use bows and arrows, but he was turned down. One reason may have been the idea that bows and arrows were associated with savages, Attila the Hun, Red Indians, etc. The most likely reason is that most recruits knew how to fire a musket or could be taught very quickly. It takes long practice to master the bow.

At the Battle of the Little Big Horn, Custer's last stand, it seems that, when the soldiers took cover behind their dead horses, the Native Americans switched from aimed rifle fire to high angle fire with bows and arrows. Many of the dead soldiers had arrows in their backs.

It has also been asserted that, given only that the horses would not stampede at the sound of gunfire, Alexander the Great could have been victorious at Waterloo.

Ah, just found this thread...
It had rolled behind the sofa .

Firearms replaced bows long before they were actually better. Anyone could be traine to fire a musket, and the noise and smoke was such fun!

Del

"...the noise and smoke..."

Yup - scared the men, shied their horses, kind of hard to imagine in this day and age what it must've been like the first time soldiers went up against even the most primitive firearms. Imagine the first time an army was shot at with arrows!

"Wot the? Where's THAT come from?"

That all depends on what's at hand. The shift in my business has been to digital but the mechanics remain the same. Whenever I get stuck on a problem I'm glad I'm a phone call away from getting the info......and I've been in the business for 25 years.

I do get your drift however. Young guys are forever tripping over the old timers comfort level. It's been that way since time began ticking.

Absolutely correct, people seem to resist change more than anything else. Ofcourse change for the sake of it is not neccessarily a good thing but I am a fervent believer of thinking "outside of the box". A point I would like to make is that often nothing is done in the fear of doing it wrong, if that happens I think you have already lost because like Out of Box Experience mentioned "Standing still is the same as falling behind". No progress is made without braking eggs!

A GA for that ES,

I just love a history lesson.

As I see it there is a middle of the road here. New is good after the kinks are worked out and tried and true should be kept on hand until they are.

New is also often a new combination of the tried and true.

As an auto mechanic who worked his way through the electronic revolution it always amazed me to see some new guy go straight for the computer codes without noticing the connecting rod sticking through the hole in the block.

No matter what new thing comes down the road you can bank on one thing. Basic physics hasn't changed. If you want to get to Z you usually have to start at A even though you merely asume A (although too many assumptions can be a real show stopper).

In my discipline, and I am sure many other disciplines something new is something is something that has only been in service 10-20 years. The reason is that we like to make sure the technology would stand up to time and testing. Also we have to get it past UL, ANSI, NEMA, IEEE, IEC, CSA, NEC and on and on and on. Also you have to get it past the RTC factor (resistance to change).

Some changes come about because of the technology changes (changing draftsmen to CAD techs). By the way CAD techs aren't draftsmen, I think we lost something in our ability to communicate. But we gained speed and better looking drawings that can be changed with less effort, and the technology would force us to change.

Some changes are rushed for various political and commercial; reasons. Example aluminum building conductors, which could be manufactured. The problem was that no other manufacturer of electrical devices and equipment had equipment not considered connection of aluminum to their copper landing points, and no one was properly trained to install that type of conductor. Now aluminum has such a bad name it is considered a poor installation and most won't consider it in any application. Even though most of the earlier problems are worked out.

Right now the worst abuse of forced change is the restriction that all new diesel engines must burn low sulfur oil in the US when the rest of the world is not going to do it. It reduced the manufacturing of diesel engine products, since no engines were developed. It raised the price of diesel fuel and refineries supply less of it since they can manufacturer normal diesel and sell it outside the US at a better profit. It couldn't have come at a worse time in the economy, and no one even knows if it will do any good.

I could go on and on but I've got this new mouse trap I'm working on and it should change the entire mouse trap industry.

Aluminum baseball bats - have they replaced wooden bats? In a word, NO. But oh, the hoopla surrounding the development some 35 - 40 years ago!

Nobody from marketing department ?

Nobody thinking about them ?

Unless you re-invent the wheel how do you patent them and how do you sell it as an USP ?

Ever heard about (well in our area there was a lot of noise about) the well tried and tested granmas recipes getting patented ?

A simple example was the Turmeric - can you market it ? of course no.

But the scientists took out the active ingradients and patented and marketed the concentrate for a few $ a dose, whereas a common person will take only the same dose (in our part it is almost staple) for a few cent.

What about the Vitamin C vs Lemon or orange ? which comes out cheap? which is marketable ?

The simple solutions have to be made complicated - else how do you sell them ?

Can you market a pencil which will write in space or an XXX brand pen used by astronauts in space stations?

We do not re-invent the wheel, it is there we know, we just put on a new cloth and sell them (a la barbie) - as usual my daughters and my credit/debit card's favourite item.

It just reminded me of latest kellogs ad in TVs making round- take two cups a day and lose 2 khs in 2 weeks (if you check the qty, and take equivalent may be two brown breads a day or may be 4 of them you are likely to lose more than 2 kgs/week - try to sell brown bread

PS: I am not a marketing man (and am allergic to ads especially the ones which makes claims).

At the Grand Canyon Nat'l Park, there are four ways to get to the bottom:

1) Helicopter - although since there's no landing zone, it's kind of anticlimactic.

2) Walk - although I'm told the hike back out is a real doozy!

3) Fall - the trip back out isn't so hard on you, but the crew retrieving the corpse cusses you every step of the way.

4) Mule - no motorized vehicle will ever replace them.

If you were in the helicopter that I took to the bottom, piloted by a crazy Vietnam vet who thought he was still in denang... you wouldn't call our landing at the bottom anticlimactic!!

I'm sure I'd call it something - I thought landings had been prohibited! Even overflights are highly restricted these days. If you've ever seen the video of a flight up from below Lake Meade to somewhere up near Glen Canyon, it is more than 25 years old. It used to run non-stop on a cable channel in Las Vegas. Mighty spectacular!

Yes, they are prohibited for the general public. I was doing a job for the US Fish & Wildlife Service; research on an endangered species fish in the river. Spent 3 weeks down there. They choppered us and our gear in and out. It was one of the most fascinating ways I've ever made $.

We used hoop net traps with a funnel on each end. Thats one of the most tried and true methods ever devised. Been around for thousands of years. Still works just fine.

yes, seemed accidental though.

Look at the question: When Is Tried and True Better than New?

What's "tried and true" has been tried or tested and found true, effective, or efficient. "Tried and true" is better than new when the new is tried and tested, and found false, ineffective, or not as efficient.

Just because something is tried and true doesn't mean it couldn't use improvement, or a better, more effective or more efficient alternative is not possible.

The problem is when someone develops a new technology when a suitable alternative already exists, the technology isn't really needed, or the development has already been tried and found lacking. Every new technology must be tested and should stand or fall on its own merits.

Even so, old technology can still be useful in certain situations. Slide rules will work when the batteries have gone out in a calculator or at night when the only light source isn't strong enough to run a solar-powered calculator.

As much as I enjoy and value the Internet as an information and entertainment source, I still read two newspapers every day. Most newspapers today are composed on computers and printed by laser printers. New technology has improved the production of newspapers, but reading the paper is easier on the eyes, uses less power, and gives more pleasure than a monitor screen.

As far as your bottom quote, I remember hesitating to run a crane after I had run one and knew the controls. Admitted this to the boss, who then told me that I was wise to have hesitated, since the particular crane would drop uncontrollably if you did not know to burn the water off the brake pads. I worked for an Aviation Company that flew Dow Jones Wall Street Journal around. Satellite transmission of the paper to local printing facilities wiped that work out. We are moving to only the Poster for the advert of the work. Book covers are all that will be ever on paper soon.

We mustn't forget member Taganan, whose signature line is to the effect that 'no technology is ever completely obsolete - a stone knife can still kill you as surely as a laser'. And the Amish still use buggy whips, I believe...

Yeah, first bow this year I used a disc sander (Christmas cabin fever and impatience were my excuses) it ended up half the draw weight I was aiming for
Bow#2...manual tools only...result?
Exactly on target draw weight (40lb @28" draw) .

Del

Two examples from my time with NASA (late 70's).

1. They were convinced that solid state devices are always better than vacuum tubes, which are, by definition, obsolete. The spent a couple $million on a 22 watt transmitter for the space shuttle. Yes, the transistors were smaller than the tube, but they were less efficient. The low voltage power supply was much bigger and heavier than the supply for the tube; the heat sinks (more waste heat from lower efficiency) were too heavy, and the shuttle did not have enough extra power and cooling to handle the "high tech" transmitter. They elected to stay with the tried and true. (By the way, the same considerations apply to space craft, plus tubes are radiation hard)

2. During the "Jimmy Carter fuel crisis", NASA decided to investigate alternate fuels for railroad locomotives. After a great deal of effort, they discovered that it might be possible for railway locomotives to burn coal, using it to make steam to drive the wheels. The resultant design looked much like existing diesel locomotives (so as not to scare motorists?) but burned coal which could be loaded on board in a box with a fork-lift. It pulled another car full of condnesers for the steam. Everything considered, the invention looked like an attractive, economical way to pull trains. Stodgy old railroad men decided to stick with the tried and true diesels.

Thank you very much esbuck. I read your post to my wife. I've myself wondered if it was sensible to grind coal to a powder and inject it with air into a burner.