What edition?
Mine is the 15th, purchased in 1955, and I still use it infrequently.
Lew
Lew
27th.
Regards,
Tom Watson
[...]
Boring? Not at all. It's an instructive case study in the consequences of failing to examine assumptions. Thanks for posting.
Thanks, Doug. I'm glad that you got it.
This kind of thing goes on all the time in that world, and I am sure, in many others.
We had technology in place to address the potential problem but so few people had been trained on it, including me, that we did not know how to use it properly.
It was only through a conversation with an "engineer" (draftsman) that I learned of how an Inventor drawing is made.
A few weeks later it was required that all PM's and Senior PM's go through the training that our design staff had gone through.
Regards,
Tom Watson
The Typo Police write:
It is the 14th edition, not the 15th edition, dummy.
Lew
One of the hardest things to remember, I think, is that many cases of apparent incompetence are simply the result of deficient training. Most people, in my experience, truly want to do a good job, and are frustrated when the employer won't take the time and funds necessary to provide the training they need.
Should have been that way from the beginning, of course.
Beautiful story and nicely written. The cause and effect was strikingly simular to issues I had to investigate to find out why things are the way they are. Unfortunalely, in goverment no one wanted to take the hit or listen to a long litany towards a solution (engineers in particular AKA 50%ers), but were more that willing to steal the accolades of a fix that some else did.
This story could have begun as "For want of a horseshoe nail".
P
My dear Mr. Watson,
Something you have NEVER done is bore me.
Yr. obt. svt.
djb
I don't want to be too harsh, but when you asked for a welded nut, you got a welded nut. You later asked for sheet metal, and they gave you welded sheet metal. It then turns out you want a weld nut, and no doubt didn't bother to specify the weld, but you were satisfied with the result. All through that, the supplier didn't bother to shit in your teacup, but quietly complied at his own expense. What more would you like? Which is the idiot? And which acted in good faith?
In my world, if it's in the plans a subcontractor doesn't have a leg to stand on if his work does not comply precisely with the plans.
That's why change orders are double and a half whammy to the contractor when the shoe is on the other foot ... he pays materials and labor the first time, labor to tear out the error, then materials and labor again to get it right.
IOW, "that's why good drawings are so important". :)
(I chant that to clients so often that I feel it must surely be written on my forehead by now.)
I have 16, 26, and 25 pdf - and not 27 anything.
Oh well.
Tom Wats> >
I think Festool has that covered.
Maybe. But the best level of customer service is one that asks what you might be using something for and offers possible alternatives if they feel there's a better solution. There's too many screw-up's that are the result of 'I was only following orders'. Unfortunately, that level of customer service is labour intensive and eats into profits and most often is not the result of shipping that labour offshore.
Just my own opinion, but Lee Valley Tools is one of those companies that does go the extra distance and beyond. Too bad the trend in the last 30 years for the vast majority of companies has been to go the profit route at the expense of the quality route.
Now, if we could only convince LV to enter the power tools for woodworking arena. :)
Yeah, but we would/might benefit from the competition. The minimal existence of quality competition to Festool gives them little incentive to lower prices.
At the very least, on-shore manufacturing could mean lower prices. I'm tired of having to pay exorbitant brokerage (legal theft) handling charges whenever I have to get something shipped into Canada that we don't have here.
I must have missed the apologetic tone and the vow to do better next time. It read like a rant about careless vendors and the triumph of succesful non-documentation.
I don't want to be too harsh either, Bubba, but - is English your first language?
Regards,
Tom Watson
I must have missed something also. From the OP it seems the design was perfectly well documented:
but that the supplier failed to read the detailed descriptions in the CAD file..
Tom Veatch Wichita, KS USA
As did the original project team that sent subsequent, incomplete, and conflicting detail. So much for clearly described and easily accessible in the CAD file. In Tom's apocryphal tale, the matter wasn't fully resolved without esoterica from the Machinery's Handbook.
We're a culture of people entirely too eager to deflect blame elsewhere. Middle management everywhere, in fact, selects on finger pointing and CYA as strong secondary traits. Point it fast, and make sure it sticks, because f*ck ups happen. Ironically enough, messr watson followed up to query whether English was my first language. Is it at all surprising that a foreign supplier, only slightly less so than a native English speaking supplier, might read the phrase "WELD NUT" on a contract document, and duly weld a nut at the specified location?
Instead of a lighthearted recounting of how shit happens, we get instead a war whoop of sorts, a memoire of how we once stuck it to the bad guys. No thanks, Man. I think it could have been better handled.
Do you not understand that the CAD file contained the details needed to make the parts? That the file contained the part drawings? That the file contained the assembly drawings showing how the parts went together? AYTFS?
Regards,
Tom Watson
Sure. I read that, Tom. What of it? They missed it. Your guys missed it. They had a "plate" indicating "WELD NUT". Are we done yet?
HomeOwnersHub website 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.