| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<uthduv$6c83$1@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com> Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech Subject: Re: "see? I told you it wasn't my fault" Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2024 09:50:23 -0400 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 156 Message-ID: <uthduv$6c83$1@dont-email.me> References: <utbmu9$3fk85$1@dont-email.me> <tdljvi1uam7le435rlqb1e02hij9r2sj61@4ax.com> <uteeid$3fk84$2@dont-email.me> <f2amvil51q2v00cncg4nn09ekh39pldngg@4ax.com> <uth8mv$6c84$1@dont-email.me> <uth9s8$272bt$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2024 13:50:23 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="cf90ddac38cd5dd9193ef94dfd788e27"; logging-data="209155"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1997OWL40qgjo2J2f76i59pcuY2P8liidc=" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:zI2b40YP6KUhSo8af0Du3k2xOps= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <uth9s8$272bt$1@dont-email.me> Bytes: 9291 On 3/21/2024 8:40 AM, AMuzi wrote: > On 3/21/2024 7:20 AM, Zen Cycle wrote: >> On 3/20/2024 2:45 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote: >>> On Wed, 20 Mar 2024 06:42:20 -0400, zen cycle >>> <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On 3/19/2024 2:37 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote: >>>>> On Tue, 19 Mar 2024 05:46:49 -0400, zen cycle >>>>> <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Zipp finally released an analysis of the cause of the crash >>>>>> suffered by >>>>>> Thomas De Gendt at the UAE tour last month. Yeah, hitting a big-assed >>>>>> rock (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ICecXdOcTY) will do that. >>>>>> >>>>>> https://www.cyclingnews.com/news/zipp-releases-photos-debunking-hookless-rim-failure-after-de-gendt-crash/ >>>>>> >>>>>> Maybe they should have followed tommy's advice and bought the cheap >>>>>> chinese knock-offs. >>>>> >>>>> Now that the real cause has been identified, is there anyone at the >>>>> UCI issuing press releases advocating the ban of carbon fiber rims, >>>>> forks and frames? After all, all innovation can be dangerous and >>>>> should be banned before the inevitable carnage arrives. >>>> >>>> Not as of this morning - >>>> https://www.uci.org/press-releases/9WTkI4p7rPgHZhBZvWpZj >>>> >>>> Adam Hansen (president of the riders union) is still railing against >>>> the >>>> technology, though it doesn't seem like this incident is going to give >>>> him much ammunition. >>> >>> Well, it is a convenient way to get his name into the media stream. >>> That's rather surprising as he seems to believe that getting media >>> attention is more important than admitting that the early speculation >>> was wrong and that the demand for a ban was highly premature. I was >>> rather disappointed that the discussion hasn't drifted in the >>> direction of carbon fiber "safety". Oh well. >> >> I'm still not sure just how much influence the CPA has over much of >> anything. Making noise is one sure way to get attention, but it >> remains to be seen IMHO if Mr. Hansen is merely tilting at windmills. >> >>> >>>>> Yes, the first step to solving a problem really is to assign the >>>>> blame. I worked for a company which practiced that no problem can be >>>>> solved or even investigated without first blaming someone. >>>> >>>> At my company, the digression follows the same predictable path >>>> >>>> - customer reports a problem >>>> - marketing/sales blames engineering >>>> - engineering shows either a manufacturing defect or incorrect customer >>>> application >>>> - marketing orders engineering to fix it anyway >>> >>> That works. The first step is to blame someone, but they can't blame >>> the person or group that is responsible for fixing the problem. >>> Therefore, they need to find someone innocent and/or uninvolved to >>> receive the blame. It also can't be someone who signs the paychecks, >>> which generally eliminates all the various "decision makers". In the >>> distant past, I would ruin the meeting by volunteering to accept the >>> blame so that we could move on to properly analyzing and then solving >>> the problem. That didn't end the bickering, but was fun for a while. >>> If that didn't work, I would keep myself entertained estimating the >>> total cost in salaries for having everyone attend a useless meeting. >> >> I'm fortunate here in that management trusts my assessments. It wasn't >> always that way, and changed significantly for the better when we >> hired a new director of QC a few years ago. He reviewed the >> outstanding issues that had yet to be signed off by management, and >> noted that my Root Cause Failure Analysis were all correct, and for >> the most part implemented my corrective action suggestions. I think it >> went a long way that in nearly every case I identified either a >> process or a specification failure rather than trying to blame an >> individual. >> >> My favorite professional quote is from Dogbert - "I'll develop a >> process which will compensate for your sloth, apathy, and overall >> incompetence". >> >> >>>>> Drivel: I used to think that the cheap Chinese knock-offs were junk >>>>> because the factory or designers didn't have the time or money to do a >>>>> proper job. That was probably true until about 2015, when I started >>>>> seeing something rather different. Before 2015, such products really >>>>> were junk when first release, but tended to improve over the life of >>>>> the product. Now, I'm seeing the initial shipments being quite well >>>>> designed and built, but later shipments tend to progress toward junk >>>>> or worse. In other words, the Chinese contract manufacturers do have >>>>> the talent, time and money to do it right the first time. However, >>>>> once the contracts are signed and the initial reviews are posted to >>>>> multiple web sites, it's now time to cut quality, reduce costs, and >>>>> sell junk. It's a strange world we live in. >>>> >>>> It isn't strange, it's business. We experience much the same with cast >>>> metal and injection molded ABS/PC parts we get from china. First >>>> Article >>>> Inspection parts are always well within tolerance and beautifully >>>> finished. It's everything after that you have to watch out for - even >>>> with CoCs accompanying each shipment. >>> >>> Yep. I'm seeing the same thing. It wasn't always like that. At one >>> point, about 1978, my employer was private labeling marine radios from >>> Japan. The first articles were hand crafted, hand solder and looked >>> like something from Japan circa 1950. However, the next container >>> full of radios showed major incremental improvements. The spaghetti >>> wiring became a flex PCB (printed circuit board). Phenolic PCBs >>> switched to G10/FR4. Front and rear panel wiring was moved to PCBs. >>> The improvements never seemed to end where each shipment was better >>> than the previous. I've seen very little of that since those radios. >>> Usually, later "improvements" consisted of labor and component cost >>> reductions and design changes intended to reduce product life. >> >> Credit Edward Demming for the implementation of process control and >> continuous improvement cycle philosophy in Japan in the 60's and 70's >> (PDCA, known these days as DMAIC, or part of general Kaizen or 6sigma >> philosophies). It's well know that removing hand operations from the >> manufacturing process dramatically reduces random error errors (vs >> systemic errors). >> >>> >>> >> > > Nice! A pithy anti-Deming quip. It's actually more supportive than it isn't. Deming showed that strict process control was the key to reliable repeatable quality output. Take away interpretive processes. It's the corner stone of the ISO 9000 series of manufacturing process control - "say what you do, do what you say". That portion is wholly pro-Deming. I will concede that 'sloth, apathy, and overall incompetence' is antithetical to to the the concept Quality Circles and employee empowerment that Deming also championed, but that isn't necessarily anti-Deming. At some point an employer has to make a decision that the competence of his employees meets the standards they are trying to achieve. Higher levels of manufacturing and design process certification require demonstrated competence by the contributors. If an employee isn't capable of maintaining a certain level of quality output, they either need to be trained or reassigned. Our factory certifications require that we maintain training records proving that the individuals involved in the development and manufacture of Hazardous Location equipment have been adequately trained to perform their job function. Sometimes, the process to compensate for sloth, apathy, and overall incompetence is to empower and train the individual and give them a stake in the system such that they are motivated to produce with pride. -- Add xx to reply