Where do the new posts go?

Self-Proclaimed die Expert.  http://kam-stampingguru.blogspot.com/

Has moved. For little more than a desire to monetize my efforts with the blog I now make all my new posts there. The WordPress site was a good learning platform, but their insistence on not letting me advertise on my own content was a little too much. Even just in principle. (disclosure I have earned $0.04 to date on the blogger site) Though I am using the blogger experience as a test bed for learning. I find a little more freedom to try things over there.

Surprisingly I have noticed that this site gets a higher ranking on Google, even though the other blog is served by Google. Funny (not like ha ha, but funny as in weird)

• Please come on over:  http://kam-stampingguru.blogspot.com/
• Also for the free-lance engineering consultants: http://tech-ho.blogspot.com/
• And goofy travel and photoblog enthusiasts: http://stringgirl.blogspot.com/

In any case, trying something new, even though it looks to be a losing proposition. The idea that this content is worth anything and the others would pay me to keep it up.

But in either case I am trying it. See you at the new site.

Die Cost vs. Die Price; Prediction vs. Reality

(disclosure I work as the Product Manager for a Sheet Metal Stamping Die Cost calculation product that is commercially available)

I have been having some really enlightening discussions with people lately about the applicability of this application to there business and what our product can/can’t do. It goes a little something like this.

act 1:

Prospect and I run through a sample part (similar to but not from the prospects parts). Software allows for import of the CAD data and with the use of either a predicted process or user input process determines resources and costs for those resources.

• me: so you see if I import the part data and define the stamping process, we can calculate a cost. Cost is based on a predicted number of hours, consumables, and mass of casting, etc and the rates for those items
• prospect: Wow, that’s cool…. But the cost here seems high. I don’t think I could sell the die for that cost
• me: Don’t worry. The database is fully editable, we can input in your hourly rates for Engineering, die makers, machine utilization, consumables, etc. Then we would recalculate and get a more realistic cost for you.
• prospect: Cost of machine utilization? Per hour? For like presses and things?
• me: yes.
• Prospect: but I don’t have those costs
• me: then how do you compute your costs today?
• prospect: we use an Excel spreadsheet, where the quoter puts in the estimate for number of engineering hours, number of stations in die/line, and number of weeks for construction and tryout. This generates the cost.
• me: that sounds like a price, not a cost
• prospect: that is  the cost. And yours still seems high
• me: don’t worry we can calibrate it still if you can tell me how many hours in each category for engineering, labor, mass of casting, or number of consumables were needed to complete each project. And from there you can calibrate the costing program to predict your usage, and therfore we can arrive at costs.
• prospect: sorry we don’t seem to have that kind of data
• me: so how DID you decide that my calculations were too high?
• prospect: I know that we can’t sell a ________ die for that price
• me: using your current system last year, were you profitable?
• prospect: uh nope, but again no body was profitable last year

act 2:

A paid customization/calibration project is undertaken. Several parts from the Customer (former prospect) are used to create data set for customization. Several parts of the same category but different projects are used. Customer also digs up the historical costs.

• Prospect: Here take a look at part A. Our cost for part A was 600,000 and you predicted 905,000. That’s too high even after we adjusted the hourly rates to match ours.
• me: Wow. That is pretty far off. How are we for the reported hours and mass of tool?
• Prospect: we don’t have that data.
• me: hmmmm. Okay we’ll look at that later. What else do we have?
• Prospect: Well now this is really interesting. We tried it for Part B and that cost was 1,200,000 and yor program predicted only 897,000
• me: wow again? But in the other direction. That is a big delta again. Any chance we know the labor hours or material for that job?
• prospect: nope.
• me: So we were really high on one job and really low on the other?
• prospect: yep. And to top it all off they were both inner wheel houses. Same customer, just different model variations. And you grossly over predicted one and underpredicted the other. I don’t think your program works at all.
• me: What? they were both wheel houses. How similar were they?
• prospect: Nearly the same size. just one is for the coupe and the other is the sedan.
• me: So for two wheel houses, with similar features, similar sizes we calculated each at around 900K or roughly 1.8 million for the two. And you built two dies for a combined 1.8 million.
• prospect: more or less….
• me: so what is the problem?
• prospect: you would not have properly predicted these cost?
• me: could anybody? What were your predicted costs?
• prospect: we quoted these jobs out at 750,000 and 800,000 respectively
• me: so not only did you lose your shirts, but you are not sure why?
• Prospect: look if you can get your program to quote +/- 2% then we can use it
• me: HUH?  but +/- 2% compared to what. Your not so good quotes, or your unpredicted losses
• Me: SILENTLY TO SELF. Basically, I know my costs are correct if they don’t match yours then right?.
• Me:Apparently you  accepted variation in your process in this case of nearly 100% accuracy for quote to real. I think we matched that…..
• Prospect: Sorry your costs are not close enough to reality for us to trust.

So yes. If you build a better mouse trap the world beats a path to your door. Except, they can’t admit that they have a mouse problem.

And if you do show them that you are catching mice. Those can’t be their mice. That mouse in the trap is dead, ours was alive and eating our cereal. (?????)

OK that analogy sucked. But really I can’t find any parallel for this at all. We can demonstrate through even the simplest definition that we provided benefit and that the benefit is real, and needed. But because the outputs don’t match the results they expect (results that they admit are subjective and perhaps even flawed, if not totally wrong) they can’t get on board with the software.

Stirring the pot

So I wonder that has caused this minor uptick in hits:

• bombastic controversy?
• Name calling?
• content?
• The magic of MetaTags?
• shameless self promotion on other sites?
• Pornbots?

In any case it has been entertaining having dialog with others who come across the content whether through the:

• SME-Forming and Fabricating Technical Community
• LinkedIn- SME Forming and fabricating group
• DIEGUY
• http://blog.toolanddieing.com/

Or maybe it is just Tim, using a bot to drive up the number of hits here so that I continue to make an fool of myself by pretending that I have something worth saying.

Simulation Accuracy (What? Again?)

It seems that maybe i can’t write enough on the topic of simulation accuracy; and maybe that is true. Or maybe I am dusting off the cobwebs around my critical thinking portion of my brain. So, I do need to revisit the topic. Just in case I have not thoroughly offended any body’s sensibilities.

To date I have:

• Said that accuracy doesn’t matter (Accuracy smaccuracy)
• Accused some of ignoring the importance of repeatability over a passing result (All things held Equal)
• Suggested the accuracy is a lot of window dressing (The illusion of Accuracy)
• And generally poo-pooed much of what the CAE and FEA commuties hold dear

So here is a little bit of damage control.

1. accuracy matters, But to pursue the accurate solution when the inputs are assumptions and NOT KNOWNS, how good is that accuracy
2. Be as accurate as you need to be at the time of simulation-during preliminary feasibility when so many variables are not defined allow for some “fudge” if it helps you get an answer in time to make a difference
3. Don’t split hairs over tenths of a percent strain when we are looking for failures which are predicted on a scale that was devised using a rusty pair of point micrometers
4. Don’t assume that a safe simulation is all that you need, passing simulations at all costs usually result in poor assumptions that are not acceptable in reality
5. Keep your failing simulations (and the inputs that created them) they are easily as important as those that pass later since you may need to explain why you move the design in a particular direction

You see, I am not a crank who is anti simulation. ON the contrary I love simulations and do heartily believe that we cannot get by without it. But I also try to take a pragmatic approach to its application and am constantly asking me, if I am getting the feedback that i need in time to make a difference. Because I don’t care how accurate a simulation claims to be if the feedback takes so long to get that I miss oppurtunities to apply the knowledge gained and benefit from it, then I don’t need it.

I can see that I have a lot of baggage in this area so maybe I need to structure my arguments better.

Kickstarting the economy (virally)

so what if? My idea is to enlist the help of the benevolent hacker (ok there might not be such a thing). Get this hacker who most likely as already 100-200 thousand machines already sleeper slaved via some seemingly innocuous worm, to wake those machines and have them fill out consumer confidence surveys worldwide. You know the kind I mean…(buying a car in the next 6 months 1 very likely, 2 maybe, 3 not very likely, 4 definitely not!).

On these surveys the responses should be startlingly confident. “Why yes I already have a plasma TV but don’t I think the new OLCD is so much nicer!” “Taking not just one cruise but Two.” The number of surveys filled out by the ‘bot’ should be sufficient to tip the scales of consumer confidence. This raised level of consumer confidence will then make manufacturers increase orders, step up production, hire like crazy. Then there will be more people who are confident (because of the increased orders at their plant) who might go and buy that new sofa/plasma TV/car.

It would also be nice if it could also respond in the positive regarding buying a GM or Chrysler (even though they are on the cusp). Should exude faith in the American economy and downplay the effect that the current “crisis” is having on their lives. Because for Pete’s sake calling it a crisis just may be what made it so damaging.

But of course this relies on the fact that there may be such a thing as a benevolent hacker. So to entice them even more…. Symantec assures me that such an attack is not possible. And to spite Gates and the evil empire. we can also add to the survey responses that we have lost faith in MS products and are only buying computers that run OpenSource linux apps.

The “Bigger Picture”, “no” and other management no-no’s

Recently, with no sense of irony, a friend was shut down by his manager, being told to mind the “bigger” picture. Essentially, communicating to all that what the manager has to say matters and what you say does not. Without getting to specific about the situation, it seems to me that the manager is actually the one missing the “bigger picture”.

It is unfortunate that when given the post of manager or team leader or supervisor, that many people fall off the turnip truck and transform into “Bosses” when a few days ago they may have been regular people. (I often feel a little bit of vertigo when standing so close to some managers, because it is disorienting to find yourself suddenly at the center of rotation of the universe)

Or how about this, when running a meeting management asks for brainstorming input. Then when the first suggestion comes in the moderator of the brainstorming session says “NO”, then laments the fact that nobody else offered any other input after that. (yes, please lets have a brainstorming session. And remember there are no dumb questions….Except that one you dummy….Any others????)

I can’t pretend to be a very good manager, but I have made some observations over time. Really good managers realize that those people who are on your team don’t work for you, you work for them. You deliver their paychecks, you dole out their vacation, you get them the tools they need, you empower them to work, you deliver their work assignments. If you think for a moment that these people are your minions, and that they are to do as told or else that is pretty much the end of the game.

NO, you don’t have to pretend to be their buddy, or even worse treat everything they do for you as a favor (favors have to be repaid). But instead the “bigger picture” is that most managers are responsible for entire processes or plants or departments. As the manager you have to keep the wheels on the cart. That means taking care of the wheels, to ensure that they can do their part. Each member of the team is a Cog in the machine. When a machine faults we can find a faulty cog, but that faulty cog is rarely fixed by diminishing it, or just tearing it out. Instead we can oil the machine, see there are any other things impeding the cog and help the cog get un-jammed.

A good manager can convey to the team the relative importance of the things that the team members are asked to do and how they fit into the larger operations of the organization. This leaves the team member feeling informed, empowered, and willing to work. Please don’t shut down your organizational machine by being one of “those” bosses.

Are there any questions?
That’s a dumb question.
Nobody else?

back on the road again

Taking the knowledge to the people. The “spde” hits the speaking circuit. This should be a tweet but I can’r remember that password.