Reuss deniesCamaro.......!!!!
07-29-2002, 09:59 PM
#31
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 745
Hey, if no Fbod, The Mighty new $30,000 Supra sure looks good.
And if they were kicking our *** in 93 to 95, I would not be surprised to see the same now. As long as it looks good. I am down for that. Esp with the type of power they are putting out of smaller engines, 100 HP per litre, out of a 3.5 or bigger displacement engine.
------------------
93 Patriot Red Z28 - A4, 3.23 Gears
*Mods*: Hooker Super Competition Catback, Holley 58MM Throttle Body, Holley Powershot Filter, 160* Thermostat, A. Anderson Programming Chip, Aeromaks Cold Air Intake System
Audio: JVC KDSH77 HU, Infiniti Kappa 6.5"
Max's Patriot Red 93 Z
Time: 14.042@96.71, 2.077 60', Humid
And if they were kicking our *** in 93 to 95, I would not be surprised to see the same now. As long as it looks good. I am down for that. Esp with the type of power they are putting out of smaller engines, 100 HP per litre, out of a 3.5 or bigger displacement engine.
------------------
93 Patriot Red Z28 - A4, 3.23 Gears
*Mods*: Hooker Super Competition Catback, Holley 58MM Throttle Body, Holley Powershot Filter, 160* Thermostat, A. Anderson Programming Chip, Aeromaks Cold Air Intake System
Audio: JVC KDSH77 HU, Infiniti Kappa 6.5"
Max's Patriot Red 93 Z
Time: 14.042@96.71, 2.077 60', Humid
07-30-2002, 12:57 PM
#32
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 538
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by WERM:
It's too bad it's not a priority, because..
350Z
Infiniti G35 Coupe
Mustang Mach1 / Supercharged cobra / 2005 Mustang
SVT focus (3 and 5 door)
WRX and WRX STI
EVO
Civic Si
MR2
Celica
RSX
Tiberon
SVT lightning
Neon SRT4
SRT10 Pickup
Eclipse / Sypder
Supra (?)
Sentra SER
Golf (now w/ 200hp + 6 speed)
and more
..Have been produced or approved for production and will be vying for all the Camaro owners left out to dry by GM - Many of them die hard Chevy fans left with nowhere to go unless they have $35K or more for a GTO or Corvette or want an automatic transmission (note that everything listed except the trucks can be had in stick).
Sure, the high volume programs will be the priority... but some day GM management will realize that the people screaming "CHEVY! CHEVY! CHEVY!" weren't the ones driving Malibus, Cavaliers and FWD Impalas and that a loyal fan base is worth more than they ever imagined.
I bought a Mustang because there was no new or updated Camaro to replace my old. The scary thing is - I really like it.
</font>
It's too bad it's not a priority, because..
350Z
Infiniti G35 Coupe
Mustang Mach1 / Supercharged cobra / 2005 Mustang
SVT focus (3 and 5 door)
WRX and WRX STI
EVO
Civic Si
MR2
Celica
RSX
Tiberon
SVT lightning
Neon SRT4
SRT10 Pickup
Eclipse / Sypder
Supra (?)
Sentra SER
Golf (now w/ 200hp + 6 speed)
and more
..Have been produced or approved for production and will be vying for all the Camaro owners left out to dry by GM - Many of them die hard Chevy fans left with nowhere to go unless they have $35K or more for a GTO or Corvette or want an automatic transmission (note that everything listed except the trucks can be had in stick).
Sure, the high volume programs will be the priority... but some day GM management will realize that the people screaming "CHEVY! CHEVY! CHEVY!" weren't the ones driving Malibus, Cavaliers and FWD Impalas and that a loyal fan base is worth more than they ever imagined.
I bought a Mustang because there was no new or updated Camaro to replace my old. The scary thing is - I really like it.
</font>
Let them keep building cavaliers
------------------
1995 Red Z28
98 Z28 Wheels
White Face Gauges
Moroso CAI
Air Foil
Hookers Headers
Dyno Max Muffler
LT4 Knock Module
Reprogramed Computer
07-30-2002, 08:49 PM
#34
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 2,979
My dearest hope is that someday, folks who know what needs to be done at GM are moved into the positions where they can make the changes.
The truth of the matter is, they probably have to lay low and keep opinions like those above to themselves - but I bet a lot of folks think them. Rocking the boat, even in the VASTLY smaller Tier 1 company that I work for = the death of a career.
My father worked for Fisher Body for 35 years. My personal dream would be to work for GM, although that may never happen. When I said I bleed Chevrolet I meant it.
Christ, I OWN AN AZTEK (it's a great vehicle, BTW... really ugly, but REALLY useful).
I'm currently writing a book on product engineering as the keystone to success. Here are some of the main points that any company can be sucessful with:
1) It takes WORLD-CLASS product engineers (and stylists and designers) to make a WORLD-CLASS product.
2) The only way to acquire world class engineers (and stylists and designers) is to TRAIN THEM. You cannot BUY them. Colleges cannot do it, contract shops have no interest in doing it, and attrition is the #1 enemy if you want to make a great product.
3) Modern companies, especially automotive companies, bleed out their best and brightest at an alarming rate. At the same time, they bleed out their future sucesses and profits and breed continual mistakes that cost horrendous amounts of money to fix.
4) Product engineering is the NUMBER ONE contributor to final product cost. The designers and engineers who develop your products have more influence on your profitability than any other single discipline (quality, manufacturing, purchasing). The only exception to this rule MAY BE marketing.
5) Quality can be engineered into a product during the development phase far less expensively than it can be added to an existing product after launch.
6) The latest quality fad (6 Sigma anyone?) will NEVER make you more sucessful than a company that engineers (and styles and designs) the product correctly in the first place.
There, now you don't need to buy the book when it is finished.
Ranting again... yeesh. I need to drink less coffee.
The truth of the matter is, they probably have to lay low and keep opinions like those above to themselves - but I bet a lot of folks think them. Rocking the boat, even in the VASTLY smaller Tier 1 company that I work for = the death of a career.
My father worked for Fisher Body for 35 years. My personal dream would be to work for GM, although that may never happen. When I said I bleed Chevrolet I meant it.
Christ, I OWN AN AZTEK (it's a great vehicle, BTW... really ugly, but REALLY useful).
I'm currently writing a book on product engineering as the keystone to success. Here are some of the main points that any company can be sucessful with:
1) It takes WORLD-CLASS product engineers (and stylists and designers) to make a WORLD-CLASS product.
2) The only way to acquire world class engineers (and stylists and designers) is to TRAIN THEM. You cannot BUY them. Colleges cannot do it, contract shops have no interest in doing it, and attrition is the #1 enemy if you want to make a great product.
3) Modern companies, especially automotive companies, bleed out their best and brightest at an alarming rate. At the same time, they bleed out their future sucesses and profits and breed continual mistakes that cost horrendous amounts of money to fix.
4) Product engineering is the NUMBER ONE contributor to final product cost. The designers and engineers who develop your products have more influence on your profitability than any other single discipline (quality, manufacturing, purchasing). The only exception to this rule MAY BE marketing.
5) Quality can be engineered into a product during the development phase far less expensively than it can be added to an existing product after launch.
6) The latest quality fad (6 Sigma anyone?) will NEVER make you more sucessful than a company that engineers (and styles and designs) the product correctly in the first place.
There, now you don't need to buy the book when it is finished.
Ranting again... yeesh. I need to drink less coffee.
07-31-2002, 07:29 AM
#35
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Ohio
Posts: 8,504
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by PacerX:
6) The latest quality fad (6 Sigma anyone?) will NEVER make you more sucessful than a company that engineers (and styles and designs) the product correctly in the first place.
Ranting again... yeesh. I need to drink less coffee.</font>
6) The latest quality fad (6 Sigma anyone?) will NEVER make you more sucessful than a company that engineers (and styles and designs) the product correctly in the first place.
Ranting again... yeesh. I need to drink less coffee.</font>
Oh, yeah, don't worry about the coffee... Coffee is a good thing!
I'm on my 3rd cup this morning already! 
07-31-2002, 09:23 AM
#36
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Golden State
Posts: 13,711
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by PacerX:
My dearest hope is that someday, folks who know what needs to be done at GM are moved into the positions where they can make the changes.
The truth of the matter is, they probably have to lay low and keep opinions like those above to themselves - but I bet a lot of folks think them. Rocking the boat, even in the VASTLY smaller Tier 1 company that I work for = the death of a career.
My father worked for Fisher Body for 35 years. My personal dream would be to work for GM, although that may never happen. When I said I bleed Chevrolet I meant it.
Christ, I OWN AN AZTEK (it's a great vehicle, BTW... really ugly, but REALLY useful).
I'm currently writing a book on product engineering as the keystone to success. Here are some of the main points that any company can be sucessful with:
1) It takes WORLD-CLASS product engineers (and stylists and designers) to make a WORLD-CLASS product.
2) The only way to acquire world class engineers (and stylists and designers) is to TRAIN THEM. You cannot BUY them. Colleges cannot do it, contract shops have no interest in doing it, and attrition is the #1 enemy if you want to make a great product.
3) Modern companies, especially automotive companies, bleed out their best and brightest at an alarming rate. At the same time, they bleed out their future sucesses and profits and breed continual mistakes that cost horrendous amounts of money to fix.
4) Product engineering is the NUMBER ONE contributor to final product cost. The designers and engineers who develop your products have more influence on your profitability than any other single discipline (quality, manufacturing, purchasing). The only exception to this rule MAY BE marketing.
5) Quality can be engineered into a product during the development phase far less expensively than it can be added to an existing product after launch.
6) The latest quality fad (6 Sigma anyone?) will NEVER make you more sucessful than a company that engineers (and styles and designs) the product correctly in the first place.
There, now you don't need to buy the book when it is finished.
Ranting again... yeesh. I need to drink less coffee.</font>
My dearest hope is that someday, folks who know what needs to be done at GM are moved into the positions where they can make the changes.
The truth of the matter is, they probably have to lay low and keep opinions like those above to themselves - but I bet a lot of folks think them. Rocking the boat, even in the VASTLY smaller Tier 1 company that I work for = the death of a career.
My father worked for Fisher Body for 35 years. My personal dream would be to work for GM, although that may never happen. When I said I bleed Chevrolet I meant it.
Christ, I OWN AN AZTEK (it's a great vehicle, BTW... really ugly, but REALLY useful).
I'm currently writing a book on product engineering as the keystone to success. Here are some of the main points that any company can be sucessful with:
1) It takes WORLD-CLASS product engineers (and stylists and designers) to make a WORLD-CLASS product.
2) The only way to acquire world class engineers (and stylists and designers) is to TRAIN THEM. You cannot BUY them. Colleges cannot do it, contract shops have no interest in doing it, and attrition is the #1 enemy if you want to make a great product.
3) Modern companies, especially automotive companies, bleed out their best and brightest at an alarming rate. At the same time, they bleed out their future sucesses and profits and breed continual mistakes that cost horrendous amounts of money to fix.
4) Product engineering is the NUMBER ONE contributor to final product cost. The designers and engineers who develop your products have more influence on your profitability than any other single discipline (quality, manufacturing, purchasing). The only exception to this rule MAY BE marketing.
5) Quality can be engineered into a product during the development phase far less expensively than it can be added to an existing product after launch.
6) The latest quality fad (6 Sigma anyone?) will NEVER make you more sucessful than a company that engineers (and styles and designs) the product correctly in the first place.
There, now you don't need to buy the book when it is finished.
Ranting again... yeesh. I need to drink less coffee.</font>
07-31-2002, 09:51 AM
#37
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia
Posts: 145
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Darth Xed:
Can you elaborate more on #6?
</font>
Can you elaborate more on #6?
</font>
Just set the Target Sigma for a given process, and the Process Evaluation Screen will tell you if your process is in the desired design margins or not. This arose from Motorola in the mid 80’s.
The philosophy behind Six Sigma is that if you measure how many defects are in a process, you can figure out how to systematically eliminate them and get as close to perfection as possible. In order for a company to achieve Six Sigma, it cannot produce more than 3.4 defects per million opportunities.
I see this as the poor man’s (or lazy man’s) alternative to ISO certification or TQM.
Ted 99 TA WS6 Conv
07-31-2002, 10:35 AM
#38
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 2,979
My kind friend above gave a pretty solid explanation of 6 Sigma from a mathematical and philosophic viewpoint, so I'll just elaborate a little...
6 Sigma is the latest "Jack Welch did it at General Electric, so we are all going to jump on the bandwagon now!" quality fad.
Jack Welch is trotted out 90% of the time as a god who took an ailing company and turned it into a money machine. He DID do that, and he made TONS of money.
The more important issue is HOW he did it. He did by selling off a multitude of divisions that actually MANUFACTURED SOMETHING, and replaced them with an emphasis on SERVICE companies like GE Capital. Service companies generally take less investment to create and run than manufacturing companies, and usually have higher margins.
If you can stomach them, there are two significant books out about 6 Sigma. Reading them is like watching paint dry, and they are little more than an excuse to sell consultant services.
K - here's the idea...
We're going to make ZERO defects our priority.
To do this, we are going to create little classifications of people who are theoretically "experts" in our new 6 Sigma process called "Green Belts", "Black Belts" and "Master Black Belts", and they are going to run around the company turning our existing and development processes into zero defect processes.
See, to sell the latest quality fad, you need three things:
1) A title for the process with an associated acronym or a title with letters and numbers in it. QS-9000, ISO-9000, TQM, 6 Sigma - you get the idea.
2) You have to have a distinguishing title for the folks who buy your nonsense hook, line and sinker to wear so they can be different (i.e 'better') than everybody else who thinks this stuff is bullsh!t. Green belts, black belts, master black belts...
3) You have to have an escape route for when your quality fad fails miserably. See, you don't want to be blamed or it will negatively effect your future business as a quality consultant. The most commonly used one is 'Senior Management Buy-In'. "My quality plan did not fail because of an inherent flaw, but because 'Senior Management' did not support it enough. GAG.
Here are the major problems with 6 Sigma:
1) Any knucklehead can become a Master Black Belt. I met one at Ford once who was going to tell us how to fix our manufacturing processes, BUT HAD NEVER WORKED IN A MANUFACTURING FACILITY. He's a "Master Black Belt" though...
2) There are a grand total of TWO pages in one of the books that have ANYTHING to do with product engineering. 6 Sigma is INHERENTLY reactive and doesn't seek to increse the skill level of the product engineering functions to the point that they design and engineer a zero-defect product in the first place.
3) Tracking for the sucess or failure of a 6 Sigma project stinks. First, ANY money spent on fixing a problem through 6 Sigma after the start of production is WASTE - it should have been engineered properly in the first place. Second, if the customer forces a 6 Sigma project on a supplier, who pays for it if it fails? Oooooops....
4) It takes YEARS to become an expert in the most narrow fields. You could easily spend 10 years working as a seat engineer to become an true expert. Some clown who got his 6 Sigma title after 2 years in the industry does NOT have the depth necessary to do the job - but that is what 6 Sigma seeks to do, artifically create 'EXPERTS'.
....continued...
6 Sigma is the latest "Jack Welch did it at General Electric, so we are all going to jump on the bandwagon now!" quality fad.
Jack Welch is trotted out 90% of the time as a god who took an ailing company and turned it into a money machine. He DID do that, and he made TONS of money.
The more important issue is HOW he did it. He did by selling off a multitude of divisions that actually MANUFACTURED SOMETHING, and replaced them with an emphasis on SERVICE companies like GE Capital. Service companies generally take less investment to create and run than manufacturing companies, and usually have higher margins.
If you can stomach them, there are two significant books out about 6 Sigma. Reading them is like watching paint dry, and they are little more than an excuse to sell consultant services.
K - here's the idea...
We're going to make ZERO defects our priority.
To do this, we are going to create little classifications of people who are theoretically "experts" in our new 6 Sigma process called "Green Belts", "Black Belts" and "Master Black Belts", and they are going to run around the company turning our existing and development processes into zero defect processes.
See, to sell the latest quality fad, you need three things:
1) A title for the process with an associated acronym or a title with letters and numbers in it. QS-9000, ISO-9000, TQM, 6 Sigma - you get the idea.
2) You have to have a distinguishing title for the folks who buy your nonsense hook, line and sinker to wear so they can be different (i.e 'better') than everybody else who thinks this stuff is bullsh!t. Green belts, black belts, master black belts...
3) You have to have an escape route for when your quality fad fails miserably. See, you don't want to be blamed or it will negatively effect your future business as a quality consultant. The most commonly used one is 'Senior Management Buy-In'. "My quality plan did not fail because of an inherent flaw, but because 'Senior Management' did not support it enough. GAG.
Here are the major problems with 6 Sigma:
1) Any knucklehead can become a Master Black Belt. I met one at Ford once who was going to tell us how to fix our manufacturing processes, BUT HAD NEVER WORKED IN A MANUFACTURING FACILITY. He's a "Master Black Belt" though...
2) There are a grand total of TWO pages in one of the books that have ANYTHING to do with product engineering. 6 Sigma is INHERENTLY reactive and doesn't seek to increse the skill level of the product engineering functions to the point that they design and engineer a zero-defect product in the first place.
3) Tracking for the sucess or failure of a 6 Sigma project stinks. First, ANY money spent on fixing a problem through 6 Sigma after the start of production is WASTE - it should have been engineered properly in the first place. Second, if the customer forces a 6 Sigma project on a supplier, who pays for it if it fails? Oooooops....
4) It takes YEARS to become an expert in the most narrow fields. You could easily spend 10 years working as a seat engineer to become an true expert. Some clown who got his 6 Sigma title after 2 years in the industry does NOT have the depth necessary to do the job - but that is what 6 Sigma seeks to do, artifically create 'EXPERTS'.
....continued...
07-31-2002, 10:37 AM
#39
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 2,979
See, GM used to have experts. They were called 'Senior Project Engineers'. It took my father nearly 20 years to become a Senior Project Engineer at Fisher Body, after starting as a detailer in the drafting group. Those guys knew their products forward and backwards, and were used as mentors for younger engineers while developing new products. That was the methodology that made Fisher Body the undisputed engineering champion of automotive body engineering. Boeing used to subcontract Fisher Body for design work. Fisher Body was regularly sourced as a production and design source for the aerospace and defense industries.
That level of skill is GONE. Contract employment and outsourcing of components killed it. Now, I am not claiming that outsourcing of manufacturing is a bad thing, just that killing off all of your engineering skill in the process is a disaster of epic proportions.
***Unabashed plug for my upcoming book, if I ever get it published - I AM NOT a consultant. I'm not selling a consulting service, and have no interest in being a consultant. You don't need to hire a consultant to explain common sense to you, if you did - you'd be too dumb to implement it anyway. Furthermore, you don't need senior management buy-in to implement it, any engineering manager can by setting up a mentor program and RETAINING HIS EMPLOYEES. It fits perfectly into modern team-oriented product development, just with a couple of twists.***
That level of skill is GONE. Contract employment and outsourcing of components killed it. Now, I am not claiming that outsourcing of manufacturing is a bad thing, just that killing off all of your engineering skill in the process is a disaster of epic proportions.
***Unabashed plug for my upcoming book, if I ever get it published - I AM NOT a consultant. I'm not selling a consulting service, and have no interest in being a consultant. You don't need to hire a consultant to explain common sense to you, if you did - you'd be too dumb to implement it anyway. Furthermore, you don't need senior management buy-in to implement it, any engineering manager can by setting up a mentor program and RETAINING HIS EMPLOYEES. It fits perfectly into modern team-oriented product development, just with a couple of twists.***
07-31-2002, 11:03 AM
#40
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Ohio
Posts: 8,504
So, in a nutshell, this whole process does little, if anything to actually design a better product... it simply accepts whatever is designed, and then tries to fix problems as they pop up?
Well, that sounds like it might make a good secondary quality assurance program, in theory... but it's like you are willing to accept that you are going to have a bunch of fires to put out after the product is already being built.
You have to assume that any product on the scale of an automobile will have some sort of problems that pop up after production begins, when you deisgn a car to use plastic clips to hold a door panel on, instead of a nut and bolt, you are designing problems right into the car... sure the nut and bolt might cost .05 more per car per bolt, and that adds up to a lot of money when you consider how many cars are built, why not just add that $1.95 to the sticker? No one would notice, and you get a MUCH BETTER product!
Well, that sounds like it might make a good secondary quality assurance program, in theory... but it's like you are willing to accept that you are going to have a bunch of fires to put out after the product is already being built.
You have to assume that any product on the scale of an automobile will have some sort of problems that pop up after production begins, when you deisgn a car to use plastic clips to hold a door panel on, instead of a nut and bolt, you are designing problems right into the car... sure the nut and bolt might cost .05 more per car per bolt, and that adds up to a lot of money when you consider how many cars are built, why not just add that $1.95 to the sticker? No one would notice, and you get a MUCH BETTER product!
07-31-2002, 11:20 AM
#41
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, ON Canada
Posts: 2,402
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Aeromaks:
Hey, if no Fbod, The Mighty new $30,000 Supra sure looks good.
And if they were kicking our *** in 93 to 95, I would not be surprised to see the same now. As long as it looks good. I am down for that. Esp with the type of power they are putting out of smaller engines, 100 HP per litre, out of a 3.5 or bigger displacement engine.
</font>
Hey, if no Fbod, The Mighty new $30,000 Supra sure looks good.
And if they were kicking our *** in 93 to 95, I would not be surprised to see the same now. As long as it looks good. I am down for that. Esp with the type of power they are putting out of smaller engines, 100 HP per litre, out of a 3.5 or bigger displacement engine.
</font>
How come its price tag will only be $30 or $35K? How did we get to this figure? I was under the impression that last generation Supra cost around $40K or $45K?
07-31-2002, 11:22 AM
#42
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia
Posts: 145
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by PacerX:
***Unabashed plug for my upcoming book, if I ever get it published </font>
***Unabashed plug for my upcoming book, if I ever get it published </font>
Ted 99 TA WS6 Conv
07-31-2002, 11:47 AM
#43
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 2,979
"So, in a nutshell, this whole process does little, if anything to actually design a better product... it simply accepts whatever is designed, and then tries to fix problems as they pop up?"
Spot on brother! See, all the glory in this industry is in fixing the disasters AFTER start of production.
Quality fads WILL NEVER REPLACE engineering the product right in the first place, and will ALWAYS be more wasteful.
I'll give you an example. We lost nearly $350,000 on a product launch this year in roughly 2 months. We were throwing away 50% of what we made because it was defective. The defect was due to the fact that product engineer was too inexperienced (NOT stupid - INEXPERIENCED... 1-2 years out of school) to realize that he needed to watch the tolerance stacks for the mechanism VERY closely.
He made a mistake, and it cost us HUGE money. I then got called in to join the team to fix it. First thing that is done? A tolerance stack - bingo, there's the problem.
Meanwhile, this poor kid is getting his *** kicked by everybody and his brother. In truth, the company broke him. He works in the FEA department now and wants no part of product development.
The sad part about it all is:
1) The company could have hired a KILLER product engineer to mentor this kid for two years for less than $250,000 and saved $100,000 by designing the product right in the first place.
2) His learning experience, a very painful one, is LOST - he's in FEA now. In the future, some other kid is going to be thrown in the same fire, and might make the same mistake.
3) The company will do it again.
GM has the same issues on a far larger scale. Remember the Trailblazer recall for (I believe) K-member/ball joint problems? GM subcontracted the design work (either through in-house contract designers or Oxford Automotive as the Tier 1).
Oxford is in bankruptcy. They started letting people go last fall. The engineering expertise there is gone. Meanwhile, the odds say that anyone at the working level at GM who knew the issue will be gone in the next two years (because they are usually contract employees).
"Sign me up (Dan?), I'll buy one. Your summary of 6 sigma is fine!"
Thanks! I will. And yes, my name is Dan. Odd how you knew that! Do I know you?
Spot on brother! See, all the glory in this industry is in fixing the disasters AFTER start of production.
Quality fads WILL NEVER REPLACE engineering the product right in the first place, and will ALWAYS be more wasteful.
I'll give you an example. We lost nearly $350,000 on a product launch this year in roughly 2 months. We were throwing away 50% of what we made because it was defective. The defect was due to the fact that product engineer was too inexperienced (NOT stupid - INEXPERIENCED... 1-2 years out of school) to realize that he needed to watch the tolerance stacks for the mechanism VERY closely.
He made a mistake, and it cost us HUGE money. I then got called in to join the team to fix it. First thing that is done? A tolerance stack - bingo, there's the problem.
Meanwhile, this poor kid is getting his *** kicked by everybody and his brother. In truth, the company broke him. He works in the FEA department now and wants no part of product development.
The sad part about it all is:
1) The company could have hired a KILLER product engineer to mentor this kid for two years for less than $250,000 and saved $100,000 by designing the product right in the first place.
2) His learning experience, a very painful one, is LOST - he's in FEA now. In the future, some other kid is going to be thrown in the same fire, and might make the same mistake.
3) The company will do it again.
GM has the same issues on a far larger scale. Remember the Trailblazer recall for (I believe) K-member/ball joint problems? GM subcontracted the design work (either through in-house contract designers or Oxford Automotive as the Tier 1).
Oxford is in bankruptcy. They started letting people go last fall. The engineering expertise there is gone. Meanwhile, the odds say that anyone at the working level at GM who knew the issue will be gone in the next two years (because they are usually contract employees).
"Sign me up (Dan?), I'll buy one. Your summary of 6 sigma is fine!"
Thanks! I will. And yes, my name is Dan. Odd how you knew that! Do I know you?
07-31-2002, 12:01 PM
#44
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia
Posts: 145
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by PacerX:
..... Thanks! I will. And yes, my name is Dan. Odd how you knew that! Do I know you?</font>
..... Thanks! I will. And yes, my name is Dan. Odd how you knew that! Do I know you?</font>
I'm just good at finding things ....
Ted 99 TA WS6 Conv
07-31-2002, 12:06 PM
#45
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Ohio
Posts: 8,504
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by PacerX:
"So, in a nutshell, this whole process does little, if anything to actually design a better product... it simply accepts whatever is designed, and then tries to fix problems as they pop up?"
Spot on brother! See, all the glory in this industry is in fixing the disasters AFTER start of production.
Quality fads WILL NEVER REPLACE engineering the product right in the first place, and will ALWAYS be more wasteful.
I'll give you an example. We lost nearly $350,000 on a product launch this year in roughly 2 months. We were throwing away 50% of what we made because it was defective. The defect was due to the fact that product engineer was too inexperienced (NOT stupid - INEXPERIENCED... 1-2 years out of school) to realize that he needed to watch the tolerance stacks for the mechanism VERY closely.
He made a mistake, and it cost us HUGE money. I then got called in to join the team to fix it. First thing that is done? A tolerance stack - bingo, there's the problem.
Meanwhile, this poor kid is getting his *** kicked by everybody and his brother. In truth, the company broke him. He works in the FEA department now and wants no part of product development.
The sad part about it all is:
1) The company could have hired a KILLER product engineer to mentor this kid for two years for less than $250,000 and saved $100,000 by designing the product right in the first place.
2) His learning experience, a very painful one, is LOST - he's in FEA now. In the future, some other kid is going to be thrown in the same fire, and might make the same mistake.
3) The company will do it again.
GM has the same issues on a far larger scale. Remember the Trailblazer recall for (I believe) K-member/ball joint problems? GM subcontracted the design work (either through in-house contract designers or Oxford Automotive as the Tier 1).
Oxford is in bankruptcy. They started letting people go last fall. The engineering expertise there is gone. Meanwhile, the odds say that anyone at the working level at GM who knew the issue will be gone in the next two years (because they are usually contract employees).
"Sign me up (Dan?), I'll buy one. Your summary of 6 sigma is fine!"
Thanks! I will. And yes, my name is Dan. Odd how you knew that! Do I know you?</font>
"So, in a nutshell, this whole process does little, if anything to actually design a better product... it simply accepts whatever is designed, and then tries to fix problems as they pop up?"
Spot on brother! See, all the glory in this industry is in fixing the disasters AFTER start of production.
Quality fads WILL NEVER REPLACE engineering the product right in the first place, and will ALWAYS be more wasteful.
I'll give you an example. We lost nearly $350,000 on a product launch this year in roughly 2 months. We were throwing away 50% of what we made because it was defective. The defect was due to the fact that product engineer was too inexperienced (NOT stupid - INEXPERIENCED... 1-2 years out of school) to realize that he needed to watch the tolerance stacks for the mechanism VERY closely.
He made a mistake, and it cost us HUGE money. I then got called in to join the team to fix it. First thing that is done? A tolerance stack - bingo, there's the problem.
Meanwhile, this poor kid is getting his *** kicked by everybody and his brother. In truth, the company broke him. He works in the FEA department now and wants no part of product development.
The sad part about it all is:
1) The company could have hired a KILLER product engineer to mentor this kid for two years for less than $250,000 and saved $100,000 by designing the product right in the first place.
2) His learning experience, a very painful one, is LOST - he's in FEA now. In the future, some other kid is going to be thrown in the same fire, and might make the same mistake.
3) The company will do it again.
GM has the same issues on a far larger scale. Remember the Trailblazer recall for (I believe) K-member/ball joint problems? GM subcontracted the design work (either through in-house contract designers or Oxford Automotive as the Tier 1).
Oxford is in bankruptcy. They started letting people go last fall. The engineering expertise there is gone. Meanwhile, the odds say that anyone at the working level at GM who knew the issue will be gone in the next two years (because they are usually contract employees).
"Sign me up (Dan?), I'll buy one. Your summary of 6 sigma is fine!"
Thanks! I will. And yes, my name is Dan. Odd how you knew that! Do I know you?</font>
It's incredible when you hear real-world stories of some of the things that actually go on...
Well, I just want to give you (and Ted) a big "Welcome!" to the 5th Gen board. I hope you stick around, you have some great stuff to say... There are a lot of really great people in this forum (Red Planet, Silver, GuionM, Chris, Z28Wilson, Werm, Doug Harden, Chuck!, Z284ever, IZ28, Formula79, Caps, cmc, the list goes on, sorry if I left anyone out... I'm sure I did) ,and you'd be an excellent addition to be sure!
We don't always see eye to eye on somethings, but it usually
makes for good conversation...OK, I'm done... I hope I didn't turn this into a nut huggin' thread!