LED Bulb dying

Page 5 of 5  
Ralph Mowery;3625637 Wrote: > Years ago when the Three Mile Island > power plant melted down was caused by management that did not know how > things worked. Three Mile Island is the classic example of how management, who does not know how the work gets done, then proclaim ridiculous denials about systems that make management redundant. That means employees - people who know how the work gets done - make decisions. Business school graduates fear that.
Only guy in GPU management who knew anything about how a nuke worked was off on National Guard duty. On Three Mile Island, they could not even make outgoing phone calls. GPU management could not ask Bell of PA for guaranteed service let alone more phone lines. It took Jimmy Carter to fix even that problem. He had all Three Mile Island phones connected directly to the White House switch board. Because 85% of all problems were directly attributed to top management. Who then blame others because they do not come from where the work gets done. Because they come from business schools, only they are trained (entrenched) to make decisions. Concepts such as ISO9000 expose business school graduates as a big reason even for bankruptcy - and crappy products.
Does he come from where the work gets done? One only need view how Steve Balmer did so much damage to Microsoft. Appreciate why business school graduates only see ISO9000 and other functions that target better products as paperwork.
Name a GM product designed by an engineer in the last 40 years. Even the engine in a Chevy Volt cannot recharge its battery. Another example of what happens when business school graduates - not the informed people - make decisions.
--
westom


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 18 Sep 2016 04:17:31 +0200, westom

in the system that produces a better product. It just means if you build junk it will be more or less consistent junk - and well documented. It DOES allow you to trace back and find out where the problem came from if you can isolate what the problem is..
When management is trying to reduce costs it is usually not hard to tell where the problem came from - it came from buying the cheapest part somewhere to save $0.05
It doesn't necessarily change the mind of the accountant responsible for the decision.
You can source all your parts from iso9000 registered suppliers, but as long as their supplier is willing and anxious to provide them with parts with "fudged" certification stickers, it doesn't help anything. The accountants try to save $0.05 per unit to recouip the hundred thousand dollars plus they spent on the ISO certification so they can sell to government accounts.
At leastthat's how it worked in the computer business.
After getting ISO certification the quality actually DROPPED - for the above stated reasons. It's not "business school graduates" saying this - it's business school "graduates" doing it. The manager/CEO calined to be a "Harvard MBA" and the controller/CFO was an anally retentive old-school CMA - two worse pains in the ass could not possibly have been thrown into contact with each other in your worst nightmares.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 9/18/2016 8:17 PM, snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca wrote:

Exactly. I had a good supplier that went through the ISO certification. They made nothing but crap after that and I dropped them.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ed Pawlowski;3625863 Wrote: > On 9/18/2016 8:17 PM, > Exactly. I had a good supplier that went through the ISO certification. > > They made nothing but crap after that and I dropped them. From Wikipedia on ISO9000: > The standard is seen as especially prone to failure when a company is > interested in certification before quality. Certifications are in fact > often based on customer contractual requirements rather than a desire to > actually improve quality. "If you just want the certificate on the wall, > chances are you will create a paper system that doesn't have much to do > with the way you actually run your business", If one thinks like a business school graduate, then he needs certificates and other paper to 'prove' his accomplishments. Spread sheets are somehow proof. If one comes from where the work gets done, then most of the paper work already exists in a form that addresses the many aspects of actual operations.
Business school graduates focus on paper work (ie spread sheets) that are only reporting on things that really happened four to ten years ago. Product people focus paper necessary to better support the customer, innovate a product, and maintain standards that defined a quality product.
I cannot say how many times I have seen business school graduates use cost controls as if that makes a better product. In reality, cost controls typically result in higher costs. But you cannot tell that to someone enthrall by the certification rather than learn how the work gets done.
When ISO9000 does not work, then search for an eliminate the reason for failure - a business school graduate who never learned how the work gets done. Worst company president is the guy who was previously a CFO. His existence explains why ISO9000 does not work.
--
westom


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Monday, September 19, 2016 at 10:17:17 AM UTC-4, westom wrote:

What you need to understand is that what Clare posted is correct. The definition of "quality" most people think of is not what ISO and similar define quality as. For example, we say, "that's a quality wrench", meaning that it's well built, nice and shiny, solid, close tolerances. But for quality measurement and monitoring purposes, the definition of quality is a product that meets the specification. You can be making cheap wrenches, that rust easily, that have wide tolerances, that have rough edges, but if that is what is spec'd for the product, then the product that meets it coming off the line is good and counted as such when monitoring whether the product meets the quality standard or not.
"If you just want the certificate on the wall,

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 09/17/2016 05:23 PM, snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca wrote:

Both are well stated. -T
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 9/17/2016 7:48 PM, Ralph Mowery wrote:

LOL, corporations are the same everywhere. The most damage I've ever seen from a program-of-the-month is the lingering 5S crap.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 17 Sep 2016 19:48:55 -0400, Ralph Mowery

In the 70's I briefly worked for a company that went to large stores and factories and replaced ALL the lightbulbs. Mostly florescent tubes. Whether they worked or not, ALL bulbs were replaced every few years. I always thought that was wasteful, but I suppose it eliminated downtime for the companies when lights burned out.
Several times I took th working bulbs, put them in a box, and brought them home. I had a few of the work lights that used the 4ft bulbs and the bulbs still worked. I actually still have at least one box of them...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@unlisted.moo says...

I have always had mixed feelings about replacing all of them at one time. If the bulbs are made at the same place and time they all should be about the same quality. If the companies would wait for about 20 % or so of the bulbs to go bad, then replace them all it should be ok.
The main reason is labor. Some companies do not have the equipment to reach high places and not skilled labor to replace the bulbs and ballasts if needed. When hiring people they only want to do it once in a long time as just getting the equipment and people there is a large part of the cost.
If In a plant like I worked we had lots of people that were qualified and equipment to do the work. We replaced the bad lamps in our 'spare' time when other work was not pushing or there was not much to be done. By doing that the company saved lots of money because the labor was bsically not costing anything extra and only the bad bulbs were changed out. It was nothing for us to change 200 to 300 bulbs in a day as large as the plant was. That many could be bad and there was still plenty of light.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 9/16/2016 8:53 PM, snipped-for-privacy@unlisted.moo wrote:

sounds like in 1 year your should replace one even if it hasn't failed, so you will never be in this situation again.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.