I didn't make it very clear in my request for a poll but I can share with
you now that over 95% of the respondents favor making the product perform
in accordance with the INTUITIVE specification. But I did receive a number
of letters like the following:
> ( ) Insist that the manufacturer conform to REASONABLE
> EXPECTATIONS for performance even though it was
> NOT explicit in my specification?
>
>
>
>I would vote for the above, although reasonableness is in the mind of the
>beholder. Actually, I think you goofed!
>
>With all of your encouragement to us to build work reducing systems (which I
>support 100%), why wouldn't you have included a simple statement like "Must
>be up and running reliably once being switched on" in your specs? If you
>know how to do this, the spec could be made more specific assuring
>compliance.
Okay, but where do you draw the distinction between issues of performance
(the job you want to do) and the intuitively obvious. For example, suppose
the same product was suffering from peeling paint, or perhaps was supplied
with a power cord that only fits European outlets, or any number of other
things. I understand what you're suggesting . . . the military has been
VERY busy attempting to do just that . . . cover EVERY base right down
to paint color shades and outdoor tests for paint weathering.
The problem became one of requirement overload . . . The last military
program
we signed up to came with 100 pounds of paper to COMPLY with. Hmmmm . . .
what's the chances that ALL of that paper was read, understood and reacted
to in a way beneficial to the customer . . . ZERO. We certainly got the
important parts and we enjoy the knowledge of having lots of happy
customers. Deep in our hearts, we know that a lot of that paper work
added no value and if ALL of it had been evaluated and strictly observed,
would have driven us out of the competition.
A number of people missed the point (my fault) for suggesting this
excercise and I twisted a number of list-ops tails with the notion
that I was asking list suscribers to help me solve a professional
problem. I'll suggest now that the exercise was very much to the
point as follows: If the list membership advice to me is so much in
favor of making the vendor comply with an INTUITIVELY derived performance
specification, why not apply it to the way we buy and use avionics -
or any other product? It doesn't matter if you're buying stuff from me,
King Radio, or Dick VanGrunsven. There are reasonable expectations
for supplier and product performance. Even if you choose to LIVE with
the product or service as received you can only help yourself in the
future and the industry in general by bringing deficiencies of all
kinds to the supplier's attention . . . and talking about it here too
in front of everybody. Flaming doesn't work . . . it only raises
defenses and starts wars. Discussing facts-in-evidence with requests
and suggestions for solutions DOES work . . . at least for suppliers
that value your business. I can't speak for Dick, but I knew Ed King.
He would have and I do appreciate feedback.
Thanks to all for taking the time to share your thoughts with me and
thanks also for some patient list-ops. In deference to lots of
equally worthy topics, I'll suggest we do NOT continue this as a thread
on the list. Mail comments to me <mailto:nuckolls@aeroelectric.com>
and watch for an article on this subject soon. By-the-way, the supplier
in question is very interested in our business too. Further, they agree
with your vote and we're discussing the most expedient solution.
Bob . . .
AeroElectric Connection
////
(o o)
| |
| Go ahead, make my day . . . . |
| Show me where I'm wrong. |
|