UUUGGGHHH,

I felt like I just went twelve rounds with Arnodl Ziffel.

I'm trying to explain to these "people" that if were getting 40% failures of brand new equipment, maybe we should see if were checking them properly. But NOOOOO, we'll just keep doing it the way it's been done. :bonk:

So,

I feel like I'm wrestling a pig. I'm sure at some point I should realize the pigs liking it, and I'm just getting tired and dirty. :frust:

I think most of us could say we've been there at one time or another, good luck. I guess the only thing that I could say is show them the money being lost. Sometimes that is the only thing that makes them sit up and take notice. Good luck.

Agreed. . . but remember. . . someone SPECIFIED and BOUGHT and PAID for that NEW equipment. . . did they consider NEW(er) methods of VERIFYING and VALIDATING that NEW equipment that will indicate the true(r) capability??

You are 100% correct, and I did not mean to make it sound like you were in the wrong. Heck, if you are like me, nobody will tell you they are buying, installing, implementing something "new" until it is out there and in use.

I hear you.

I feel 99.9% confident the product is good, and could put this to rest with some veeeeerrrryyyy basic testing. But the ol' we've been doing it this way for years paradigm reared it's ug'y cranium.


So, if you do something wrong long enough it becomes right. :mad:

Thanks for the space to vent.

You are 100% correct, and I did not mean to make it sound like you were in the wrong. Heck, if you are like me, nobody will tell you they are buying, installing, implementing something "new" until it is out there and in use.Someone hit a poll and brought up an old post from energy about the death of Common Sense. That humorous obituary reminds us all there is often a serious disconnect between brain and wallet when bosses buy capital equipment.

These are the same guys who swear on a stack of religious texts that they absolutely practice Contract Review when it comes to buying components and services for their company's main product, but will give a blank stare when someone suggests purchases of production machinery should get similar review.

Hey! I know folks who comparison shop for weeks before buying a new brand of cereal, but willingly sign for a $30,000 auto after a test drive around the block, without checking acceleration to highway speed or checking third parties about repair frequency.

Hey! I know folks who comparison shop for weeks before buying a new brand of cereal, but willingly sign for a $30,000 auto after a test drive around the block, without checking acceleration to highway speed or checking third parties about repair frequency.
Wes, to me it isn't even that. I'm talking about the purchase of new equipment/technology without the simple planning of how it will be proved out for capability once it is installed. :nopity:

It's easy to put it in, it's a little harder to figure out how you will use it and "shake it down". But, hey, our motto is "we are not just leading edge, we are on the raw and bleeding edge of technology"

Wes, to me it isn't even that. I'm talking about the purchase of new equipment/technology without the simple planning of how it will be proved out for capability once it is installed. :nopity:

It's easy to put it in, it's a little harder to figure out how you will use it and "shake it down". But, hey, our motto is "we are not just leading edge, we are on the raw and bleeding edge of technology"It may be hard, but it's important enough to make the effort. In my mind, Contract Review INCLUDES

capability (of our folk to operate or use stuff we buy or make stuff we sell or of our supplier to make it in quantity and quality we require)
capacity (to make enough products in the time required at the quality level required)
return on investment (is there value added from our investment [in material, production facilities and machinery,plus our labor] to generate a profit after selling the product) (I want my supplier to make enough profit to stay in business and not cut corners.)

When I hear "we've been doing it that way for bla bla bla. . . I think "It must be time for a change then". . . hence the "change is inevitable. . .you can march in the parade or get the heck out of the way". . . some people like to get run over before they realize that there actually IS a parade.

One practice that has been tried and proven is to send out a couple of people to the machine supplier/manufacturer and do some prove-out (validation) testing. . . with the actual tooling, gaging, material and operators.

This performs 4 functions. . . 1) will it make what we need? 2) if not, are we measuring it right? 3) can our people operate it? and 4) you have the expert machine designers (Or sales person - Yuk Yuk) there to answer the questions before you get the boat anchor in-house.

Just MHO. . . I think I'll make some pork ribs tonight!! :lmao:

When I hear "we've been doing it that way for bla bla bla. . . I think "It must be time for a change then". . . hence the "change is inevitable. . .you can march in the parade or get the heck out of the way". . . some people like to get run over before they realize that there actually IS a parade.
:lmao:

Taz and Co

Here is my favourite Powerpoint presentation regarding 'We have always done it that way..."

http://elsmar.com/Forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=709

Hope you enjoy it

Greg B

One practice that has been tried and proven is to send out a couple of people to the machine supplier/manufacturer and do some prove-out (validation) testing. . . with the actual tooling, gaging, material and operators.

This performs 4 functions. . . 1) will it make what we need? 2) if not, are we measuring it right? 3) can our people operate it? and 4) you have the expert machine designers (Or sales person - Yuk Yuk) there to answer the questions before you get the boat anchor in-house.
:lmao:YES!!
Back in the 90's (at a contract manufacturer of machined parts), we contracted for 3 high tech machine tools (two turning centers and one vertical mill) for a total of $1,000,000.

Our negotiation with the manufacturer included

drawings and prototypes of the parts we wanted to make on these tools
a good faith estimate by the manufacturer on REAL production rate
Our design and operating engineers were very dubious of the projected production rate.

We went back and negotiated a thirty day trial on our floor, with the manufacturer's tech gurus to nursemaid us. The deal was we would hit the projected production rate within 30 days or manufacturer had two choices:

take all the machines back at his expense,
OR
negotiate a lower price with us in line with the REAL production rate.
At the end of 30 days, they were up to 80% of the projected rate. Because some of the problems entailed tooling changes, we mutally extended the trial for 30 more days. We finally did make the projected production rate.

The manufacturer THANKED us for giving them the opportunity to learn in a real world environment. They were certain the lessons learned would help them make better machines. Our guys were happy as they could be. They had established a real rapport with various gurus from the manufacturer who were always on tap for future advice. Our guys learned stuff about those machines they never would have learned without the manufacturer gurus (one of whom was a major design engineer of the machine.)

Taz and Co

Here is my favourite Powerpoint presentation regarding 'We have always done it that way..."
Man does that sound familiar!!! LOL. . .now I want a banana! :lmao:

Since I'm the next post, do I get to spray the cold water?

You beat me to it :( , so the job is yours. Now all we have to do is to start spraying those apes continually, until they get their bottoms in gear and
go and get the bananas.:whip:

Or translated to Jstains example: Make the people who just keep doing it the way it's been doneresponsible for handling the claims.

/Claes