components manufacturing methods

Chalo said:

In my experience working with a couple of hotshot high-tech startups,
some engineers are able to accept suggestions from a "laborer", and
some just can't for whatever reason. It seems like a pass/fail issue
of basic engineering competence to me, but then... I'm not in
management.

If a design engineer can't take suggestions from someone below his
station, then it doesn't really matter whether there is a functioning
feedback mechanism or not. The problem is partly technological, as
you point out, and partly cultural. If we as a technological society
could surmount it, I bet we could resume our former status as the best
innovators in the world. But as our whole society becomes more
stratified, rank becomes more important and ability less so. The
decadence of technology turns out to be just another aspect of the
decline of empire.

The ability to take suggestions from a "laborer" (or machinist, or
welder, or tool & die man, etc.) is probably more of a personal
characteristic than anything else.

There are certainly engineers who lack that ability, or lack any skill
at getting along with other factory workers, and who are less
effective as a result. But the problem of arrogance really can go
both ways. That is, I've seen engineers having to deal with tradesmen
who mistakenly thought they knew a lot more than the engineers about a
particular problem. The tradesmen were not only undiplomatic, but
literally mocking in their presentation of their mistaken
"knowledge." And it didn't seem to phase them when they were proven
wrong.

Nobody can be expert in everything, and no educational program has the
time to teach everything. Learning has to continue long beyond formal
education - ideally, until the end of one's life - and people do need
to learn from lots of different folks, including those with less
prestigious job titles.

But both the engineer and the craftsman need to realize that the
other, if competent, has knowledge he lacks. Ditto the physician and
physical therapist, the lawyer and the secretary, etc.

- Frank Krygowski

jim beam said:

er, because there was a problem? either they didn't qualify the
producer sufficiently or they didn't address production issues
sufficiently.

As this was outcontracted production I understand you use the term
"they" in one sentence as reference to two different organizations?

--
MfG/Best regards
helmut springer

Helmut Springer said:

jim beam said:

er, because there was a problem? either they didn't qualify the
producer sufficiently or they didn't address production issues
sufficiently.

As this was outcontracted production I understand you use the term
"they" in one sentence as reference to two different organizations?

no, "they" means the person wanting the job done! both times!

forgive me if i don't spell out "the person of the first part hitherto,
the contractee, otherwise referred to as 'the designer' or 'the
engineer' or 'contract originator', not to be confused with the
contractor, or any persons unable to follow a logical thread progression".

jim beam said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

er, because there was a problem? either they didn't qualify the
producer sufficiently or they didn't address production issues
sufficiently.

As this was outcontracted production I understand you use the
term "they" in one sentence as reference to two different
organizations?

no, "they" means the person wanting the job done! both times!

I take it you are not very familiar with outcontracting parts
production to sub-suppliers? Typically the customer specifies the
characteristics of the part to be delivered, the sub-supplier is the
expert in and owner of the actual production thus all issues within.
At least when you contract for more than low value add task
execution, which rarely is a business case in high cost locations
anyway.

--
MfG/Best regards
helmut springer

Helmut Springer said:

jim beam said:

Quoted message said:

> er, because there was a problem? either they didn't qualify the
> producer sufficiently or they didn't address production issues
> sufficiently.
As this was outcontracted production I understand you use the
term "they" in one sentence as reference to two different
organizations?

no, "they" means the person wanting the job done! both times!

I take it you are not very familiar with outcontracting parts
production to sub-suppliers?

er...

Quoted message said:

Typically the customer specifies the
characteristics of the part to be delivered,

really? i never knew that!!!

Quoted message said:

the sub-supplier is the
expert in and owner of the actual production thus all issues within.

really? i never knew that!!!

Quoted message said:

At least when you contract for more than low value add task
execution, which rarely is a business case in high cost locations
anyway.

wow - if ever illustration were needed of communication difficulties!!!
thanks helmut - you've contributed a lot to this debate.

jim beam said:

Helmut Springer said:

jim beam said:

>> er, because there was a problem? either they didn't qualify the
>> producer sufficiently or they didn't address production issues
>> sufficiently.
> As this was outcontracted production I understand you use the
> term "they" in one sentence as reference to two different
> organizations?
no, "they" means the person wanting the job done! both times!

I take it you are not very familiar with outcontracting parts
production to sub-suppliers?

er...

Quoted message said:

Typically the customer specifies the
characteristics of the part to be delivered,

really? i never knew that!!!

Quoted message said:

the sub-supplier is the
expert in and owner of the actual production thus all issues within.

really? i never knew that!!!

Obviously, otherwise you wouldn't expect the customer to resolve
production issues like not meeting quality requirements on
tolerances.

But this is OT here, will stop feeding the troll,

--
MfG/Best regards
helmut springer

In article
<[email hidden]>
,

Chalo said:

There are more factors than manufacturing method that dictate the
properties of a part.

Know first of all that stiffness is a product of basic material type
and part dimensions, not manufacturing technique. A cast stem made
from weak, soft aluminum would be as stiff as a cold-forged and
machined stem made from 7075-T6 alloy, if they both had the same
shape, size, and weight. So for stiffness, you are concerned about
gross categories of material (e.g. steel vs. titanium vs. aluminum vs.
magnesium), part weight, and part form. It makes no difference how
the part is made.

[...]

Quoted message said:

I may have left out some noteworthy processes, but at the moment I
think that's about all the common metalworking techniques used in the
manufacturing of bike parts.

Thanks for this, Chalo.

--
Michael Press