|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Nov 10, 2022 21:09:54 GMT -5
At the chemical plant, I worked industrial hygiene for some years. At the time, the regulations stated that should an employee (or their attorney) request IH records, the records had to be delivered within a specific time limit. With 2,000+ employees and years of IH records for each, I pointed out to my boss that we wouldn't be able to comply with any such request. Boss asked me to research what might be needed.
As I surveyed various engineers and production managers, I found out that each would recommend whatever software product they were personally most familiar with ("you can do that in Excel" - "You could do that in Word" - etc.). I finally determined that a database would be the most appropriate tool for the job. At the time, the premium database product was the latest version of dBase. I reported this to boss, and when he found out that dBase would cost almost $400, he asked me to "find something cheaper" or else ask the in-house IT department what they might charge to set us up.
I went to the head of the IT department, and explained our needs. IT said that they'd charge us $1,000 per month to administer the program they'd write for us. How would data entry work? I'd send them paper and they'd input it when they had time. How would data retrieval work? I'd send them a request through intracompany mail and they'd print a report when they got around to it. Would I get any training or documentation on the program or be able to see data on a real-time basis? No - I wouldn't need to - they'd handle all input-output. And then the $10,000 question - could this be done on a PC? "ABSOLUTELY NOT!" ONLY their mainframe would be able to handle the data volume that I'd be generating! (I was skeptical).
So I went to boss, told him what I'd been told, and said I thought I could achieve what was needed on a PC. So I got permission to try, provided the software cost didn't exceed $100. I found a program called "Clarion Personal Developer" for $79 and bought a copy. Within a couple of weeks, I had the program written that would do what was needed. In another week, I had some data entered.
I called the head of IT into my boss's office, demonstrated what I'd done, and then said "You told me this couldn't be done on a PC. Did you not know what you were talking about or were you lying to me?" He didn't like the question and tried very hard to evade it while we laughed at him. When he company went bankrupt the IT head left and went to work for the State (the ultimate repository of the mediocre).
Since then, I've become somewhat more diplomatic, but I still won't tolerate being deliberately lied to with much grace...
Boom
|
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Nov 10, 2022 22:21:00 GMT -5
At the chemical plant, I worked industrial hygiene for some years. At the time, the regulations stated that should an employee (or their attorney) request IH records, the records had to be delivered within a specific time limit. With 2,000+ employees and years of IH records for each, I pointed out to my boss that we wouldn't be able to comply with any such request. Boss asked me to research what might be needed. As I surveyed various engineers and production managers, I found out that each would recommend whatever software product they were personally most familiar with ("you can do that in Excel" - "You could do that in Word" - etc.). I finally determined that a database would be the most appropriate tool for the job. At the time, the premium database product was the latest version of dBase. I reported this to boss, and when he found out that dBase would cost almost $400, he asked me to "find something cheaper" or else ask the in-house IT department what they might charge to set us up. I went to the head of the IT department, and explained our needs. IT said that they'd charge us $1,000 per month to administer the program they'd write for us. How would data entry work? I'd send them paper and they'd input it when they had time. How would data retrieval work? I'd send them a request through intracompany mail and they'd print a report when they got around to it. Would I get any training or documentation on the program or be able to see data on a real-time basis? No - I wouldn't need to - they'd handle all input-output. And then the $10,000 question - could this be done on a PC? "ABSOLUTELY NOT!" ONLY their mainframe would be able to handle the data volume that I'd be generating! (I was skeptical). So I went to boss, told him what I'd been told, and said I thought I could achieve what was needed on a PC. So I got permission to try, provided the software cost didn't exceed $100. I found a program called "Clarion Personal Developer" for $79 and bought a copy. Within a couple of weeks, I had the program written that would do what was needed. In another week, I had some data entered. I called the head of IT into my boss's office, demonstrated what I'd done, and then said "You told me this couldn't be done on a PC. Did you not know what you were talking about or were you lying to me?" He didn't like the question and tried very hard to evade it while we laughed at him. When he company went bankrupt the IT head left and went to work for the State (the ultimate repository of the mediocre). Since then, I've become somewhat more diplomatic, but I still won't tolerate being deliberately lied to with much grace... Boom What you saw was arrogance and people liking to do things as they usually do. these types of people are uninterested in any innovation or new ideas. |
|
|
|
Post by leonski on Nov 10, 2022 23:33:06 GMT -5
At the chemical plant, I worked industrial hygiene for some years. At the time, the regulations stated that should an employee (or their attorney) request IH records, the records had to be delivered within a specific time limit. With 2,000+ employees and years of IH records for each, I pointed out to my boss that we wouldn't be able to comply with any such request. Boss asked me to research what might be needed. As I surveyed various engineers and production managers, I found out that each would recommend whatever software product they were personally most familiar with ("you can do that in Excel" - "You could do that in Word" - etc.). I finally determined that a database would be the most appropriate tool for the job. At the time, the premium database product was the latest version of dBase. I reported this to boss, and when he found out that dBase would cost almost $400, he asked me to "find something cheaper" or else ask the in-house IT department what they might charge to set us up. I went to the head of the IT department, and explained our needs. IT said that they'd charge us $1,000 per month to administer the program they'd write for us. How would data entry work? I'd send them paper and they'd input it when they had time. How would data retrieval work? I'd send them a request through intracompany mail and they'd print a report when they got around to it. Would I get any training or documentation on the program or be able to see data on a real-time basis? No - I wouldn't need to - they'd handle all input-output. And then the $10,000 question - could this be done on a PC? "ABSOLUTELY NOT!" ONLY their mainframe would be able to handle the data volume that I'd be generating! (I was skeptical). So I went to boss, told him what I'd been told, and said I thought I could achieve what was needed on a PC. So I got permission to try, provided the software cost didn't exceed $100. I found a program called "Clarion Personal Developer" for $79 and bought a copy. Within a couple of weeks, I had the program written that would do what was needed. In another week, I had some data entered. I called the head of IT into my boss's office, demonstrated what I'd done, and then said "You told me this couldn't be done on a PC. Did you not know what you were talking about or were you lying to me?" He didn't like the question and tried very hard to evade it while we laughed at him. When he company went bankrupt the IT head left and went to work for the State (the ultimate repository of the mediocre). Since then, I've become somewhat more diplomatic, but I still won't tolerate being deliberately lied to with much grace... Boom What you saw was arrogance and people liking to do things as they usually do. these types of people are uninterested in any innovation or new ideas. The CONCEPT is one of 'Continuous Process improvement'.. And must be part of all plans of every functional group of every organization..... if NOT? You are wasting time, money, people and other resources..... Best practices in manufacturing demand that the best way to do something is adhered to by all operators. No matter WHO comes up with the idea or innovation. |
|
|
|
Post by marcl on Nov 11, 2022 0:31:39 GMT -5
At the chemical plant, I worked industrial hygiene for some years. At the time, the regulations stated that should an employee (or their attorney) request IH records, the records had to be delivered within a specific time limit. With 2,000+ employees and years of IH records for each, I pointed out to my boss that we wouldn't be able to comply with any such request. Boss asked me to research what might be needed. As I surveyed various engineers and production managers, I found out that each would recommend whatever software product they were personally most familiar with ("you can do that in Excel" - "You could do that in Word" - etc.). I finally determined that a database would be the most appropriate tool for the job. At the time, the premium database product was the latest version of dBase. I reported this to boss, and when he found out that dBase would cost almost $400, he asked me to "find something cheaper" or else ask the in-house IT department what they might charge to set us up. I went to the head of the IT department, and explained our needs. IT said that they'd charge us $1,000 per month to administer the program they'd write for us. How would data entry work? I'd send them paper and they'd input it when they had time. How would data retrieval work? I'd send them a request through intracompany mail and they'd print a report when they got around to it. Would I get any training or documentation on the program or be able to see data on a real-time basis? No - I wouldn't need to - they'd handle all input-output. And then the $10,000 question - could this be done on a PC? "ABSOLUTELY NOT!" ONLY their mainframe would be able to handle the data volume that I'd be generating! (I was skeptical). So I went to boss, told him what I'd been told, and said I thought I could achieve what was needed on a PC. So I got permission to try, provided the software cost didn't exceed $100. I found a program called "Clarion Personal Developer" for $79 and bought a copy. Within a couple of weeks, I had the program written that would do what was needed. In another week, I had some data entered. I called the head of IT into my boss's office, demonstrated what I'd done, and then said "You told me this couldn't be done on a PC. Did you not know what you were talking about or were you lying to me?" He didn't like the question and tried very hard to evade it while we laughed at him. When he company went bankrupt the IT head left and went to work for the State (the ultimate repository of the mediocre). Since then, I've become somewhat more diplomatic, but I still won't tolerate being deliberately lied to with much grace... Boom What you saw was arrogance and people liking to do things as they usually do. these types of people are uninterested in any innovation or new ideas. As an engineer I was told by managers - even a CEO one time - "that idea will never work." Sometimes I'd get to prove I was right and sometimes not ... but generally I wouldn't be proven wrong. Reminds me of the episode on the miniseries about the moon landing. A guy gets the idea that the Lunar Module does not need seats and big windows. The boss blows him off. So they get out the cardboard and work all night to build the mockup ... and that was the design. "All good work is done in defiance of management." - Bob Woodward Source: quotepark.com/quotes/1763029-bob-woodward-all-good-work-is-done-in-defiance-of-management/ |
|
|
|
Post by leonski on Nov 11, 2022 1:45:06 GMT -5
We had an engineer......We called him SLAPPY. He insisted that reflectance be calibrated to an INTERNAL sample of Chrome on Silicon.
I didn't like this and was the only person who READ THE INSTRUCTIONS for the machine we used to measure reflectance. l
So I started reading samples IN PARALLEL with the the 'chrome' standard. I used BARE SILICON which is VERY stable and will NOT oxidie past about 20 angstroms....which it does within 30 minutes.
I had a huge spreadsheet, including calculations of mean and standard deviation....of both the Chrome and Silicon standards. Using Silicon on a properly calibrated system (production and engineering
sismply were NOT using it correctly) I showed the superiority of the Silicon reference.....which was basically ANY test wafer new out of the box.....And didn't cost us ANYTHING more to process or read.......
No Go.
I also did a reflectance measure for what is called ARC....Anti Reflective Coating which was part of the photo process used to ensure good metal edges. I collected data. Drew Graphs. Ran test wafers at
various thickensses. I could tell you by my graphs is the file was too thick OR too thin and how much the depostion needed to be altered to make the film the correct thickenss. I made sure that the MAXIMUM
reflectance was at the wavelength of the light used for exposure. Straight experimental science and 100% repeatable.....Not some 'guess' or 'wish'....
That's when I made up my mind to go do something else.. And that's not the ONLY story I have. I made a machine change once (not a process effecting change) and got into trouble UNTIL they realized that
what I did fixed the problem they were seeing at the next step....and costing a LOT of money. Whole thing hushed up and I got 50$ at some store......in credit......BS!
|
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Nov 11, 2022 4:12:10 GMT -5
Management at the chemical plant eventually recognized my value to operations. When an engineer proposed a new or innovative project, I was called to “The Palace” to review the proposal. One of the better engineers had designed a bi-directional filter system with a complicated valving sequence. I politely pointed out that the design wouldn’t work as intended without another valve (and I explained why and located the position where the extra valve would need to go). The engineer initially thought I was mistaken, so I advised him to sleep on it and talk to me tomorrow.
The next day, the engineer came by the control room with an apology - I had been right.
Recently, I was the featured speaker at the local chapter AIChE monthly meeting, and the same engineer introduced me - “Now Glenn is not a Chemical Engineer, but if he he’d been, he’d have been a GREAT one!” One of the nicest introductions I’ve had.
|
|
|
|
Post by marcl on Nov 11, 2022 7:23:16 GMT -5
Management at the chemical plant eventually recognized my value to operations. When an engineer proposed a new or innovative project, I was called to “The Palace” to review the proposal. One of the better engineers had designed a bi-directional filter system with a complicated valving sequence. I politely pointed out that the design wouldn’t work as intended without another valve (and I explained why and located the position where the extra valve would need to go). The engineer initially thought I was mistaken, so I advised him to sleep on it and talk to me tomorrow. The next day, the engineer came by the control room with an apology - I had been right. Recently, I was the featured speaker at the local chapter AIChE monthly meeting, and the same engineer introduced me - “Now Glenn is not a Chemical Engineer, but if he he’d been, he’d have been a GREAT one!” One of the nicest introductions I’ve had. Related to all this .... Glenn, you're in Louisiana, right? I had an experience early 80's ... I was hired by Honeywell in PA 1980. One thing they asked me to do was look at studies of effects of corrosive atmosphere's on process control equipment. I found an ongoing study at Battelle Labs in OH funded by controls, oil, paper and other companies. They concluded that specifications for atmospheric contaminants for process control equipment were wrong by two or three orders of magnitude. I tried to tell my managers we had to change our spec, and they laughed it off ... whole industry specs this way ... no problems ... can't be true. For example ... SO2 100ppb, CL 10ppb, humidity <50% "noncondensing", etc. based on single gas chamber tests. They agreed I could send equipment to Battelle for an accelerated multi-gas test. I went ... and the equipment died in an hour or two with concentrations far lower than the spec. Repaired and repeated several times. Managers didn't believe it. Mid '82 reports from Cities Service refinery in Lake Charles, LA of a system not yet in use, in a control room under construction, with black corrosion all over circuit boards. Although the atmosphere met the spec, it far exceeded what Battelle said was safe for electronics. The system was destroyed before ever being turned on. I - at 28 years old - had to stand in front of the Plant Manager and explain. I had the answer, because I had studied the reports. No BS, I just told the truth. p.s. also visited a paper mill in Deridder, LA ... like 50 miles north, dry at the time with no hotel, basically one road to get there. Story was the plant always fell in disrepair because each Plant Manager tried to do as little as possible and GTF outa there in two years! p.p.s. A month later I was invited to join the ISA committee writing the new standard for Environmental Conditions For Process Measurement And Control Systems: Airborne Contaminants. We published the standard in 1985, and it has only been slightly revised since. If you have a Dell computer, the environment spec will say Airborne contaminant level: G2 or lower as defined by ISA-S71.04-1985 |
|
KeithL
Administrator 
Posts: 10,273
|
Post by KeithL on Nov 11, 2022 10:58:29 GMT -5
I would point out one thing... which is often a sticking point... but is also unfortunately true... In many cases change costs money... Yes, a new process, or even a new procedure, may be a significant improvement... However, testing new procedures to determine whether they are an improvement or not also costs time and money... And, in many cases, re-tooling and re-training also costs money... And, even if the new process is better, this cost may take a long time to recover... (Or it might never be recovered before the product's life cycle runs out.) And, in some cases, there is a risk of finding out later, after you adopt the new process, that it has some unsuspected down-side... And, yes, in many cases, the "corporate culture" is also simply against change... But sometimes the push-back comes from outside... I've seen several situations where a process could be improved, and would have offered a benefit to the manufacturer, but there was a huge cost from outside. In one specific situation a company I worked for discovered that a product final test was being done incorrectly... and was actually resulting in damage to some of the product. However, both every detail of the production cycle, and every detail of the test process, had been approved and "signed-off" by the government (who was the customer). And, in this particular situation, we could not amend the process, even to correct an obvious error, without full government review and re-approval. And, in this case, that would have added cost, and caused significant delay, while we waited for review and re-approval. (So the decision was made to continue to do the approved test procedure, then "informally" retest each unit, and "repair" those that were damaged by the improper test.) I'll also offer an interesting anecdote... specifically about selecting which computer or database product to use. Back in "the old days" IBM was quite often the vendor for large expensive mainframe computers. To the point where they were "the established industry leader" for such solutions. This was true to such a degree that their solution was always considered to be "the safe choice"... While, even though another better solution might exist, it would entail more risk... And, at that point, they actually had a phrase that was repeated quite often... "Nobody ever got fired for recommending IBM"And, sadly, while it may not have been 100% true, there was a lot of truth in that statement. If someone recommended another solution, and it didn't work, "it would be their fault"... Whereas, the IBM solution usually worked, even if it cost more, and wasn't necessarily the optimum solution.... And, in the rare case that the IBM solution didn't work well, "nobody could be blamed for choosing the obvious industry leading solution". So, in effect, if you chose someone else, you were "rolling the dice", while IBM was "the safe bet"... And, back in those days, in most large companies, safety was valued above innovation. In Boom's example it's no big surprise that the IT department preferred to use the solution that they were familiar with... Both because they were familiar with it and because they would continue to have control over it... There are many legitimate reasons why IT departments and professionals dislike "separate programs running on uncontrolled PCs". (And I do remember with fondness the quaint old days when $400 for a copy of dBase III was considered to be "a lot of money".)  At the chemical plant, I worked industrial hygiene for some years. At the time, the regulations stated that should an employee (or their attorney) request IH records, the records had to be delivered within a specific time limit. With 2,000+ employees and years of IH records for each, I pointed out to my boss that we wouldn't be able to comply with any such request. Boss asked me to research what might be needed. As I surveyed various engineers and production managers, I found out that each would recommend whatever software product they were personally most familiar with ("you can do that in Excel" - "You could do that in Word" - etc.). I finally determined that a database would be the most appropriate tool for the job. At the time, the premium database product was the latest version of dBase. I reported this to boss, and when he found out that dBase would cost almost $400, he asked me to "find something cheaper" or else ask the in-house IT department what they might charge to set us up. I went to the head of the IT department, and explained our needs. IT said that they'd charge us $1,000 per month to administer the program they'd write for us. How would data entry work? I'd send them paper and they'd input it when they had time. How would data retrieval work? I'd send them a request through intracompany mail and they'd print a report when they got around to it. Would I get any training or documentation on the program or be able to see data on a real-time basis? No - I wouldn't need to - they'd handle all input-output. And then the $10,000 question - could this be done on a PC? "ABSOLUTELY NOT!" ONLY their mainframe would be able to handle the data volume that I'd be generating! (I was skeptical). So I went to boss, told him what I'd been told, and said I thought I could achieve what was needed on a PC. So I got permission to try, provided the software cost didn't exceed $100. I found a program called "Clarion Personal Developer" for $79 and bought a copy. Within a couple of weeks, I had the program written that would do what was needed. In another week, I had some data entered. I called the head of IT into my boss's office, demonstrated what I'd done, and then said "You told me this couldn't be done on a PC. Did you not know what you were talking about or were you lying to me?" He didn't like the question and tried very hard to evade it while we laughed at him. When he company went bankrupt the IT head left and went to work for the State (the ultimate repository of the mediocre). Since then, I've become somewhat more diplomatic, but I still won't tolerate being deliberately lied to with much grace... Boom What you saw was arrogance and people liking to do things as they usually do. these types of people are uninterested in any innovation or new ideas. |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,273
|
Post by KeithL on Nov 11, 2022 11:15:27 GMT -5
If your old VIC20 and Commodore still work they might be collector's items... The Apple II+ I had used an audio cassette for program storage (you actually plugged in a regular $29 audio cassette recorder). It came with 16 kB of RAM (but was expandable to 64k by filling three more rows of sockets with chips). It actually did low-res color, on a TV screen, with an RF modulator, through the antenna input, but it only supported "pixel graphics" and "sprites"... The TI99 was an oddball little machine... It was a 16 bit processor, and took 16 bit game cartridges, but could only be programmed to run 8 bit user programs. For that you had to use the "BASIC cartridge". The computer itself was relatively small... But in order to use a floppy drive you had to add a huge "expansion cabinet"... Which was about five times the size, and five times the price, of the computer itself. As I recall the first IBM PC-AT, which was the first "IBM PC" with a hard drive, came with a 10 mB HD. At that time I had a Wyse clone, which was slightly faster than a stock PC-AT, and in which I had installed two 20 mB hard drives... But I also installed a special controller card that formatted them in a special format - RLL - which boosted the capacity on the drives to a whole 30 mB on each. (Those drives cost about $200 each, in 1970's dollars, and only had about a two year life expectancy.... ) And, of course, I had a monochrome amber monitor and a Hercules graphics card (higher resolution than original VGA but monochrome only). Then, later, when I did tech writing... Four of us in an office had terminals connected to a Wang Word Processor (a Wang OIS I believe)... Which weighed a ton... and had a massive 5 mB hard drive... (Back in those days Wang was tops in office wordprocessors. They even had their own skyscraper... the Wang Tower... seriously.) Ahhh... the good old days. What a crack-up. Some old stuff by modern standards. A friend of mine built the Sinclair computer from a kit....... And I've got a VIC-20 out in the garage. With the CASSETTE tape drive. I think it has 4k memory or some such? At work we had a dedicated metrology machine......I don't remember just WHAT it measured, but it was I think windows 3.1? I worked about a block from COMMODORE when the VIC-20 and the C-64 were both popular. I visited their fab, after a job offer but decided the place was a DISASTER and stayed put... I worked for WDC when the first HDs came out. I can't remember capacity......But TINY by modern reckoning. But I ALSO worked for WDC when they got tied up with I think......UCI or SDSU? with something called the Pascal Microengine. I don't think I ever actually saw one, but a book was in our stock room ABOUT it and programming. It might have even been a 4 bit machine, but 8 bit TOPS. Remember the KAYPRO? Like a computer in a suitcase? Another buddy worked shipping for a copy / competitor. He borrowed a machine for a weekend and it was a monster. It came with another suitcase of documentation / instructions. But the company had problems with copyright infringement and when THAT got sorted out? The Owner / President of the whole thing ran his NEW FERRARI into a bridge abutment killing himself and basically taking the company down at the same time This? The day they went PUBLIC.... |
|
|
|
Post by geebo on Nov 11, 2022 11:38:39 GMT -5
If your old VIC20 and Commodore still work they might be collector's items... The Apple II+ I had used an audio cassette for program storage (you actually plugged in a regular $29 audio cassette recorder). It came with 16 kB of RAM (but was expandable to 64k by filling three more rows of sockets with chips). It actually did low-res color, on a TV screen, with an RF modulator, through the antenna input, but it only supported "pixel graphics" and "sprites"... The TI99 was an oddball little machine... It was a 16 bit processor, and took 16 bit game cartridges, but could only be programmed to run 8 bit user programs. For that you had to use the "BASIC cartridge". The computer itself was relatively small... But in order to use a floppy drive you had to add a huge "expansion cabinet"... Which was about five times the size, and five times the price, of the computer itself. As I recall the first IBM PC-AT, which was the first "IBM PC" with a hard drive, came with a 10 mB HD. At that time I had a Wyse clone, which was slightly faster than a stock PC-AT, and in which I had installed two 20 mB hard drives... But I also installed a special controller card that formatted them in a special format - RLL - which boosted the capacity on the drives to a whole 30 mB on each. (Those drives cost about $200 each, in 1970's dollars, and only had about a two year life expectancy.... ) And, of course, I had a monochrome amber monitor and a Hercules graphics card (higher resolution than original VGA but monochrome only). Then, later, when I did tech writing... Four of us in an office had terminals connected to a Wang Word Processor (a Wang OIS I believe)... Which weighed a ton... and had a massive 5 mB hard drive... (Back in those days Wang was tops in office wordprocessors. They even had their own skyscraper... the Wang Tower... seriously.) Ahhh... the good old days. What a crack-up. Some old stuff by modern standards. A friend of mine built the Sinclair computer from a kit....... And I've got a VIC-20 out in the garage. With the CASSETTE tape drive. I think it has 4k memory or some such? At work we had a dedicated metrology machine......I don't remember just WHAT it measured, but it was I think windows 3.1? I worked about a block from COMMODORE when the VIC-20 and the C-64 were both popular. I visited their fab, after a job offer but decided the place was a DISASTER and stayed put... I worked for WDC when the first HDs came out. I can't remember capacity......But TINY by modern reckoning. But I ALSO worked for WDC when they got tied up with I think......UCI or SDSU? with something called the Pascal Microengine. I don't think I ever actually saw one, but a book was in our stock room ABOUT it and programming. It might have even been a 4 bit machine, but 8 bit TOPS. Remember the KAYPRO? Like a computer in a suitcase? Another buddy worked shipping for a copy / competitor. He borrowed a machine for a weekend and it was a monster. It came with another suitcase of documentation / instructions. But the company had problems with copyright infringement and when THAT got sorted out? The Owner / President of the whole thing ran his NEW FERRARI into a bridge abutment killing himself and basically taking the company down at the same time This? The day they went PUBLIC.... After that 10meg drive, that had more room then I would ever need, was nearly full I went to a 20meg drive with RLL formatting. Now for sure 30meg would be more than I would ever need. Today not even a single NEF photo from my Nikon Z6 would not fit on that drive if it was completely empty. Oh yeah, I was also one of those that actually had an IBM PC Jr. |
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Nov 11, 2022 11:39:37 GMT -5
Related to all this .... Glenn, you're in Louisiana, right? I had an experience early 80's ... I was hired by Honeywell in PA 1980. One thing they asked me to do was look at studies of effects of corrosive atmosphere's on process control equipment. I found an ongoing study at Battelle Labs in OH funded by controls, oil, paper and other companies. They concluded that specifications for atmospheric contaminants for process control equipment were wrong by two or three orders of magnitude. I tried to tell my managers we had to change our spec, and they laughed it off ... whole industry specs this way ... no problems ... can't be true. For example ... SO2 100ppb, CL 10ppb, humidity <50% "noncondensing", etc. based on single gas chamber tests. They agreed I could send equipment to Battelle for an accelerated multi-gas test. I went ... and the equipment died in an hour or two with concentrations far lower than the spec. Repaired and repeated several times. Managers didn't believe it. Mid '82 reports from Cities Service refinery in Lake Charles, LA of a system not yet in use, in a control room under construction, with black corrosion all over circuit boards. Although the atmosphere met the spec, it far exceeded what Battelle said was safe for electronics. The system was destroyed before ever being turned on. I - at 28 years old - had to stand in front of the Plant Manager and explain. I had the answer, because I had studied the reports. No BS, I just told the truth. p.s. also visited a paper mill in Deridder, LA ... like 50 miles north, dry at the time with no hotel, basically one road to get there. Story was the plant always fell in disrepair because each Plant Manager tried to do as little as possible and GTF outa there in two years! p.p.s. A month later I was invited to join the ISA committee writing the new standard for Environmental Conditions For Process Measurement And Control Systems: Airborne Contaminants. We published the standard in 1985, and it has only been slightly revised since. If you have a Dell computer, the environment spec will say Airborne contaminant level: G2 or lower as defined by ISA-S71.04-1985 I knew I liked you! LOL |
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Nov 11, 2022 11:55:14 GMT -5
I would point out one thing... which is often a sticking point... but is also unfortunately true...In many cases change costs money... Change DOES cost money. That's why, today, almost every company has a "corporate risk tolerance matrix." The matrix standardizes risk tolerance across a company's many locations and ensures that a risk that is unpalatable to management can be eliminated at all locations. Management has three choices with risk - spend money to reduce it, insure it, or live with it. But the risk-tolerance matrix specifies what level of risk eliminates the latter two options. This is an excellent "whip" to use on managements since it is their OWN risk tolerance matrix (that they have already accepted and approved) that prevents them from dismissing scenarios that they would otherwise sweep under the table. Usually, a multi-dimensional severity matrix is included that specifies risks for onsite injuries and fatalities - offsite injuries and fatalities - environmental impacts - costs - and publicity. The highest risk in any of these categories becomes the overall risk for the specific scenario. The Process Hazard Analysis teams usually do a fine job of estimating severities - they know their own equipment well. But they sometimes do a poorer job of estimating scenario likelihoods. The reason is human nature. If something has happened to you before, you expect it to happen again. For example, if you'd asked a New Orleans native whether the city would ever flood prior to Hurricane Katrina, the answer would have been "of course not! My great grandparents, grandparents, and parents lived here all their lives and it's never happened!" But if you asked a New Orleans native the same question today, their answer would be "Absolutely! If not this year, maybe next!" To get a better handle on likelihoods, the risk analysis tools of Layers of Protection Analysis (LOPA) were developed that rely on insurance data to quantify the actual likelihoods of specific events. Other tools such as Event Tree Analysis and Fault Tree Analysis can be used when LOPA is inadequate. I have the pleasure of teaching risk analysis at the Southeastern Louisiana University. It's lots of fun. But with a corporate risk matrix and good analysis tools, management has the confidence to know where to spend money on risk reduction, and where not to. This is far better than in the "bad old days," when a managers personal bias, or lack of budget could derail important safety changes. Boomzilla |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,273
|
Post by KeithL on Nov 11, 2022 12:56:39 GMT -5
That all makes perfect sense... However I thought we were talking about manufacturing or production procedures rather than risk. I should also point out that, for a smaller company, the only "risk evaluation" is "what insurance do we need to purchase". And, past that point, it all falls to the insurance company. And, in terms of production flexibility, and evaluating new production procedures... The cost of testing and evaluating, or even considering, new procedures simply outweighs the potential benefits. And, if you're going to maintain a "team" to evaluate such things, then THEY are a cost. (Whether you hire dedicated individuals or ask others to take time away from other duties to participate.) I would point out one thing... which is often a sticking point... but is also unfortunately true...In many cases change costs money... Change DOES cost money. That's why, today, almost every company has a "corporate risk tolerance matrix." The matrix standardizes risk tolerance across a company's many locations and ensures that a risk that is unpalatable to management can be eliminated at all locations. Management has three choices with risk - spend money to reduce it, insure it, or live with it. But the risk-tolerance matrix specifies what level of risk eliminates the latter two options. This is an excellent "whip" to use on managements since it is their OWN risk tolerance matrix (that they have already accepted and approved) that prevents them from dismissing scenarios that they would otherwise sweep under the table. Usually, a multi-dimensional severity matrix is included that specifies risks for onsite injuries and fatalities - offsite injuries and fatalities - environmental impacts - costs - and publicity. The highest risk in any of these categories becomes the overall risk for the specific scenario. The Process Hazard Analysis teams usually do a fine job of estimating severities - they know their own equipment well. But they sometimes do a poorer job of estimating scenario likelihoods. The reason is human nature. If something has happened to you before, you expect it to happen again. For example, if you'd asked a New Orleans native whether the city would ever flood prior to Hurricane Katrina, the answer would have been "of course not! My great grandparents, grandparents, and parents lived here all their lives and it's never happened!" But if you asked a New Orleans native the same question today, their answer would be "Absolutely! If not this year, maybe next!" To get a better handle on likelihoods, the risk analysis tools of Layers of Protection Analysis (LOPA) were developed that rely on insurance data to quantify the actual likelihoods of specific events. Other tools such as Event Tree Analysis and Fault Tree Analysis can be used when LOPA is inadequate. I have the pleasure of teaching risk analysis at the Southeastern Louisiana University. It's lots of fun. But with a corporate risk matrix and good analysis tools, management has the confidence to know where to spend money on risk reduction, and where not to. This is far better than in the "bad old days," when a managers personal bias, or lack of budget could derail important safety changes. Boomzilla |
|
|
|
Post by leonski on Nov 11, 2022 14:40:29 GMT -5
I worked in a ZERO TOLERANCE situation.
Sure, if somebody stubs there toe?
But we had HF, HCl, Sulferic, and a HOST of proprietary gasses and mixtures. Including SILANE which is 'pyrophoric' and ignites on contact with AIR.
So, you can stick your head in the SAND and ignore the fuel tank in the PINTO.....thanks, Ford......or FIX IT and make it a non-issue........
We can NOT have stuff like I list getting out of containment. Even Implanter parts.....contaminatd with Boron, Phosphorus and Arsenic compounds were handled like Radioactive Waste and
bagged, cleaned and otherwise secured.
All that 'analysis' is one layer of 'maybe' after another with probabilities applied. the REAL cure is take ALL posssibiles seriously and design, train, and equip around......
The ONE faillure in our fab? Caused by an OUTSIDE VENDOR who snoozed thru the mandatory safety training (seriously?) and cut between 2 tags on DOUBLE CONTAINMENT line which contained HF.
Seriously? there was a label about 18" on EITHER SIDE of where he cut. He was SUPPOSED to cut a Sulferic line which had been drained, rinsed, and blown dry.......Very safe to cut into at THAT point....
I hate to use the RETRO word, but it would have been a good idea to drain / flush ALL wet chemcial lines in that space.......
I worked in a VERY dangerous facility. The semiconductor industry is VERY chemical intense and you also have a giant electric supply TO the facility.....I've seen a Ground Fault Interrupt Breaker you couldn't
fit in the back of a 1/2 ton pickup.......And when it wouldn't latch? The braintrust BYPASSED it......I'm certain the building had a series of problems rendering the place a hazard.
Change does NOT cost money.
It MAKES money. Quality is FREE, and simply can't be 'inspected in'. Proper changes improve efficiency (more output per worked hour), can lower costs (substitute material or vendor) and if done right
can also improve end-product reliability and extend useful life......
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,273
|
Post by KeithL on Nov 11, 2022 16:26:24 GMT -5
I would agree that PROPER changes CAN lower costs, improve efficiency, and increase safety and reliability. The catch is that IMPROPER changes can do the exact opposite of all of those. And, in the end, someone has to be entrusted with the authority to figure out or decide which is which. And there is always a risk that, whoever is entrusted with that decision, could make a mistake, or use priorities that don't agree with yours or mine. (Or they could make the absolute best decision, based on what was known at the time they made that decision, and it could still turn out to be wrong.) And, if you watch any of those "Engineering Disaster" shows... You'll see an even mix of disasters that occurred because something that should have been changes wasn't... And those that occurred because some seemingly trivial change resulted in some really nasty unexpected consequences... (And, in the latter half, the disaster often could have been avoided by NOT making the change.) I worked in a ZERO TOLERANCE situation. Sure, if somebody stubs there toe? But we had HF, HCl, Sulferic, and a HOST of proprietary gasses and mixtures. Including SILANE which is 'pyrophoric' and ignites on contact with AIR. So, you can stick your head in the SAND and ignore the fuel tank in the PINTO.....thanks, Ford......or FIX IT and make it a non-issue........ We can NOT have stuff like I list getting out of containment. Even Implanter parts.....contaminatd with Boron, Phosphorus and Arsenic compounds were handled like Radioactive Waste and bagged, cleaned and otherwise secured. All that 'analysis' is one layer of 'maybe' after another with probabilities applied. the REAL cure is take ALL posssibiles seriously and design, train, and equip around...... The ONE faillure in our fab? Caused by an OUTSIDE VENDOR who snoozed thru the mandatory safety training (seriously?) and cut between 2 tags on DOUBLE CONTAINMENT line which contained HF. Seriously? there was a label about 18" on EITHER SIDE of where he cut. He was SUPPOSED to cut a Sulferic line which had been drained, rinsed, and blown dry.......Very safe to cut into at THAT point.... I hate to use the RETRO word, but it would have been a good idea to drain / flush ALL wet chemcial lines in that space....... I worked in a VERY dangerous facility. The semiconductor industry is VERY chemical intense and you also have a giant electric supply TO the facility.....I've seen a Ground Fault Interrupt Breaker you couldn't fit in the back of a 1/2 ton pickup.......And when it wouldn't latch? The braintrust BYPASSED it......I'm certain the building had a series of problems rendering the place a hazard. Change does NOT cost money. It MAKES money. Quality is FREE, and simply can't be 'inspected in'. Proper changes improve efficiency (more output per worked hour), can lower costs (substitute material or vendor) and if done right can also improve end-product reliability and extend useful life...... |
|
|
|
Post by leonski on Nov 11, 2022 18:59:01 GMT -5
Keith? ONE big key is 'vetting' such changes before they take effect. We had TECN procedures.......Temporary Engineerig Change Notice which had TIME limit......The intent was to replace with an ECN at some later date after data collection and results...... I saw ONE engineer who had a very troublesome process in his charge. All sorts of problems, and I'd hazard a guess that NOT ALL were the result of his process. He made some ILL ADVISED changes and went home on a Friday evening.....maybe 7pm or 8pm. ' Within a few hours? Things went to HELL in a hurry and several lots were SCRAPPED since the defect from this process was both NOT reworkable but a reliability issue. He came back Monday to NO JOB.. I really felt bad for this guy, who was smart, but just didn't 'get it' with the unintended consequences of changes. At that late-stage of the line? Scrap is VERY expensive. Consisting of maybe 100 @6" wafers with sometimes thousands of potential die PER......Some devices, like IGBT are huge die and maybe down near 100 or so potential 'good' per wafer. And Expensive..... KEY? While someone has to eventuallly 'make the decision'.....they need good council, proper data and an understanding of WHAT is going on as a potential downsides. Yes, those diaster shows make my Butt Clench. The one about the 'inside' 2 or 3 level bridge at that hotel? That's about 1981 and many were killed....https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyatt_Regency_walkway_collapse And all because of an UNVetted Engineering Change in the suspension. ME? I'd love to find out about that pedestrian bridge collapse in MIAMI a few years ago. Bridge was falling apart DURING THE RIBBON CUTTING and fell onto the roadway below, within a few days....... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_International_University_pedestrian_bridge_collapseFrom my viewpoint? ALL engineering changes serve Costs. Or Yield. Or thruput. Or Safety. You have 4 basic conditions of change. When a line is NEW you get a certain, fairly low yield. But you immediately begin to identify and work on changes. First up? EASY changes with BIG results. Next? EASY changes with lesser results. Than? Difficult changes with big results. And finally....and you may NEVER get to these, Difficult changes with small results. We started at 'number one' and than did a lot of #2 and #3 IN PARALLEL. Always, results were our guide......consistent with not doing anything STUPID. By the time line-yield is at some high 'mature' level? You must DO NOT HARM and if you CAN, go for some small hitters which may take a bunch of work to get right..... |
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Nov 11, 2022 20:56:54 GMT -5
Yeah, we have a multitude of discussions going simultaneously:
Change for the sake of:
Efficiency
Profit
Risk avoidance
Ego
Some are always justified, some are never justified. In 99.9% of the cases, it depends on the circumstances.
|
|
|
|
Post by leonski on Nov 11, 2022 22:08:27 GMT -5
I JUST found my 'The Memory Jogger, A pocket guide of tools for continuous improvement'.......
This was given to me in '97, so call it over 25 years. But the information is STILL valid and useful.
I'm not going into Excruciating Detail, but this little guide covers a LOT of ground.....
Things you'd never think of are covered and important..right down to presenting information to decision makers.....
And since I'm a process oriented person, the section on Statistical Process Control always grabbed my interest.
|
|
|
|
Post by audiobill on Nov 12, 2022 17:54:13 GMT -5
Why is it that so many who are technically "right" all the time aren't also wealthy?
Perhaps that's not enough?
|
|
|
|
Post by leonski on Nov 12, 2022 19:52:37 GMT -5
Why is it that so many who are technically "right" all the time aren't also wealthy? Perhaps that's not enough? Different things.....Different skillsets and ambitions. I know I made desisions which resulted in less $$$ but more satisfaction.....But had my first paying job when I was just short of my 10th birthday..... Everyone is better at some things than others. Some skills are not 'practical' or perhaps 'saleable'...... And other skills.....maybe in the medical field....require great dedication and much education to attain..... Ever seen the test they give those who want to become dentists? I had a couple friends who spent time CARVING CHALK to specified shapes. If I wished for anything? Better business skills....... |
|
