15 Years Of Transmitter Repair Experience example essay topic

With the world of broadcast television relying so heavily on new technology to remain competitive, broadcast engineers find themselves continuously facing unfamiliar problems. These problems are most evident in the acquisition of newer equipment or new equipment to them. The resulting search for knowledge about this equipment can easily cause an engineer to accept the reasoning of another without further inquiries and / or testing. Thus, the anchor trap has been set. Hammond, Keeney, and Raiffa (1998), describe the anchor trap as, "when considering a decision, the mind gives disproportionate weight to the first information it receives. Initial impressions, estimates, or data anchor subsequent thought and judgments".

Although this concept of influenced decision making can be applied to almost every thing we do, I have realized that it can be found in my profession in abundance. This week for me has consisted of repairing my one kilowatt analog transmitter. Up to this point, this transmitter has been plagued with multiple problems that have required more knowledge for its repair than I possess. A total of three field engineers have been flown in to assist in the repair of this transmitter. It has been said the third time is the charm, and in the case of this transmitter, it is true. The first engineer that was flown in had more than 15 years of transmitter repair experience.

He was originally from France and works as a freelance transmitter installer / repairer. He was also known to be experienced with the company that manufactured the transmitter. I expected to gain a deep insight of this transmitter from this engineer. In the field of engineering, the way a circuit works is universal.

My understanding of what the problem with the one kilowatt transmitter was partially correct. Unfortunately, I was unable to grasp the views of this engineer due to his heavy French accent. This communication difficulty made technical interaction rather difficult. Areas of the transmitter that were explained took longer than necessary for me to grasps. Being that I was unfamiliar with several of the design concepts and how it was supposed to work, I took for granted that this engineer was giving me accurate information.

The anchor trap had been set due to my inexperience with this transmitter. Unfortunately, the transmitter was not repaired due to a lack of parts and time. He returned three weeks later to complete the tasks and was unsuccessful. The additional knowledge I gained in reference to troubleshooting the transmitter was still greatly appreciated. On his third and final visit, the faults that he found had already been identified by me. The purpose of his return visit was still unresolved.

The malfunction was not visible until after I had returned from taking him to the airport. At that time I requested that he not return and an engineer from the product company be flown out to repair the transmitter. This engineer completely disagreed with the majority of repairs that had been made by the other engineer. Being that I had accepted the views of the first engineer as fact, it was difficult for me to accept what the new engineer was saying. We were able to rule out the individual parts of the transmitter that had been previously targeted as malfunctioning and focused on a different area. This new approach proved fruitful for us and the transmitter seemed to come to life.

Within 24 hours, the transmitter was off air again. The engineer and I depleted the supply of on site parts and could only get the transmitter up to half power. With the result of this visit being more promising than the previous three, I inquired as to all of the information the first engineer had given me. The latest engineer verified a few, but disagreed with most of it.

Being that the transmitter was still operating and malfunctioning areas had been tested and verified, I revised the basic principles to match his instead of what I had previously been told. The anchor trap was then renewed. The final repair of this transmitter was assigned to another freelance engineer that had a well known reputation and a steep price tag. He came out Wednesday, April 2, 2003, of last week and just left today.

We worked all week and weekend to repair and fine tune the transmitter. The theories that I had been told and accepted, he did not verbally disagree with. Instead he proceeded to test and show me what the theories should have been. His technique of not telling, but actually showing was the final step that was needed to bring the transmitter up to full power. This allowed to me push aside the anchor trap with actual facts. The time was taken over the past week to verify that each stage was operating correctly.

Areas that I was oblivious to and that the previous two engineers didn't even consider were explored. The knowledge, familiarity, and technique that I gained from this last engineer was based on facts that I verified by actually testing them. The decision tree that I had created and have been updating was finally on the right track. I was able to remove the anchor trap that had limited me to going around the problem, to actually leading me to the problem. It is a continuing process to refine the decision tree, but the skills and knowledge that has been tested, verified, and gained, will definitely for more accurate troubleshooting in the future. My decision making process in relation to the repair of this transmitter was hampered by the anchor trap.

Not having the experience with this equipment only contributed to the strength of this trap. We were not only able to bring the transmitter back to full operation, but we were able to achieve 129% of the outgoing power. The stage by stage testing and the reconstruction of the air flow system proved that this transmitter is designed to run at 150% of the specified power rating. With the repairs and alterations completed, maintenance and future repairs can now be documented properly. With the first two engineers's theories being discredited by the actual facts, testing, and verification of the third engineer and I, finally an accurate decision tree for troubleshooting can be created. John S. Hammond, Ralph L. Keeney, and Howard Raiffa, Harvard Business Review, Sep / Oct 98, Vol. 76 Issue 5, p 47, 8 p, retrieved April 7, 2003, from web.