Design vs. Supply.... 8

[jproj]

Lets say Thor works for a design firm. A contractor/consulting firm sends Thor a request for quotation for the supply of a pressure vessel. Thor, who normally designs these vessels, determines that everything about the vessel is undersized (nozzles, tank, etc)... This is not the first time Thor has had this problem. Previously, Thor pointed these flaws out to the company and was sternly told to quote the specified unit. His company lost the previous order.

The undersizing of the unit will lead to premature nozzle errosion, and poor fluid separation, but is not projected to cause any operating hazards (at least in the short term... it will definately not last as long as a properly sized unit).

What is the ethical choice?

1) Once again inform the client that the tank is seriously undersized and risk being thrown out of the bid.
2) Quote the unit as specified, knowing in advance that the unit is undersized and will at minimum have a reduced life span.

Thoughts?

 

[CajunCenturion]

Can you provide a quote for the bid as specified, and in an addendum, or at least in a memo to the right person, identify all the problems and potential costs that you see with the requested specifications.

 

[ewh]

I agree with CajunCenturion; bid the unit as specified but point out the caveats of the requested design.

 

[TheTick]

I can relate. I often get customers requesting quotes for "undersized" parts or parts that might otherwise fail to meet their unrealistic expectations.

The bottom line for me is that I do not work for the customer. I work for my employer. I give the sales dept. the unvarnished truth, and it's their job to bend/break it as they need to. Usually my estimates submitted to sales are peppered with a number of exceptions and warnings which I recommend be forwarded to the customer. However, it is not my place to go directly to the customer with these except through appropriate channels.

I don't have a problem with this ethic, though I would if there were lives at stake. Oftentimes, customers either are't interested in our technical assessment or, worse, resent being upstaged by some "cheesehead" [COLOR=gold green](Go Packers!)[/color] from the wrong side of Lake Michigan.

Due to illness, the part of The Tick will be played by... The Tick.

http://www.EsoxRepublic.com

 

[monkeydog]

In addition to what the previous posters have said, you can also quote the recommended part(s) that will provide better service and life.
Your sales people can then add that in as an "unsolicited" bid to the package.

 

[aspearin1]

I agree whole-heartedly with TheTick. We all have differences of engineering opinion. On my projects, we have 8 different ways we approach the same problem, and many can be done. Some cost more. Some make short-term more profitable. Some make long-term more possible. You get the point. For good products you need to take into account to following: 1.SAFETY 2.QUALITY 3.COST... That's the idealistic order of consideration... However, those ideals also compete with 1.GOOD 2.FAST 3.CHEAP... The rule of thumb with that is that you can only choose 2 of those three. If your customer prefers "fast" and "cheap", then "good" is out the window. You can feel satisfied that the customer got what they asked for as long as no safety hazards exist.

aspearin1

 

[jmw]

Tough call the way it is set out.

But i have a different view. I work for the customer. It is part of the deal he gets when he contacts the company. He expects to be able to rely on me for the best advise. I am the specialist.

If i give the best service i can then i am serving the companies best interests as well as my own.

Then again, i have never been told to quote something I disagree with quoting. If my name goes on the quote, it's my quote. Sure, i will quote the best for the job from our own range but i when the company did not have the right product i would say so. I would even point the client in the direction to get the right product. Over the years this has paid dividends. Most sales are often decided not on logic or the technical specification but by emotional factors. Trust and integrity are critical. You may lose some in the short term but you will win out in the end.

You can always lose a sale.
You can lose it on price.
You can lose it to higher priced products.
You can even lose it to higher priced products of inferior quality.

The question has to be, why did you lose the last sale? Did the client get mislead last time? Is the product being sold properly and have you understood the clients needs correctly?

More important is to keep the client. Clients have a lifetime value that goes beyond a single sale won or lost.

What is important is to make sure that what you quote is quoted under the right constraints.
Be very sure the customer needs are understood.
It may be that he has a tight capital budget but a good maintenance budget.

I have known contractors who bid complete plant based on the original specification they started with and for a lot of very good reasons. This plant always included one bit of kit that never worked and was always fixed afterwards. It just cost too much to change the way they did things. Life isn't perfect.

The only thing other that i could say is that where there is doubt, offer a choice. Offer the spec as dictated and the spec you want to quote. Now you have something to discuss.

Two points:
1) If you bid the one product, the client is chosing between suppliers. If you bid two products, you now get the client chosing which of these two specifications he wants. He will want to discuss these options.

2) If the competition has offerred the low cost option, you can now open the clients eyes to the limitations of that option by an honest appraisal of your own offers.

If your name goes on the quote, it's your integrity on the line. If you have to prepare it, see if you can't get the manager to sign it off. get him to put his name on it. (Say "After the last time, it may carry more weight with the client if you sign it")



JMW

http://www.viscoanalyser.com

 

[DRC1]

I like JMW's answer. You could quote the specified product but note that due to the nozzel size etc. it might have a 1 year life span, But, then point out that for only a few dollars more, you could get a better system, with a life of 5 years, which if evaluated on a life cycle basis is cheaper.
You have accomplished:
1) answering the requested quote.
2) Pointed out the realites of the design without critisim. ( the unit was probably specified by the guy asking for the quotes)
3) Quoted a better unit with a cost justification. Best of all, no one else is quoting this option.

Thus, even if the buyer sticks with the original unit and it burns out in a year, thats the choice he made and he can't complain about the quality of the unit.

 

[jmw]

Some companies have a sign up that says "The customer pays the bills".
I think that says it all. If only management could read.

There is another popular saying "The customer is always right." This one has to be treated with caution. What it means is that you cannot tell the customer he is wrong. In my experience customers are more often wrong than right and you have to find a tactful way for them to discover their error. Often this is by discussion and discussion comes when you present choices. It is an opportunity to educate without the client being aware of his error, or having to admit to it.

As an aside, engineers often do have to produce things in a way they would rather not. I'd like a Ferari. But i can't afford one. Frequently the engineers task is not to produce the best product possible but to produce one that will sell. The link between engineering, marketing and sales is a vital one.

Any time you have a problem like this there is a need to get everyone together to analyse why the first sale was lost and what was done about it at the time. You have to learn from these events. The situation you describe here is suggestive of the fact that someone somewhere hasn't made a full contribution. If you have more than one hat on, if it is you that gets to do the selling or to share in the selling role (e.g. by direct customer contact) then it helps to get addittional training in sales and marketing. Even a two or three day course teaches lot's of "common sense". Popular are "buying signals" and "objections". Recognising these and handling them is the diference between a sale and no-sale.

JMW

http://www.viscoanalyser.com

 

[petertor]

You *have to* look at it from both sides in the industry.

There is the defective owner design and request for quote.

There is then the defective low bid, with qualifiers, and by that I mean, defective in the sense that all quotes will not be equal because of those qualifiers, so the owner is entering into a defective bid competition.

There is the defective fabrication, since the fabricator KNEW before bidding there were defects in the design RFQ, or should have known.

There is the defective construction and inspection, since everyone involved is going to have to be massaged, censured or otherwise encouraged to look the other way. Or maybe no one will notice the problem, the field rarely does.

Finally, there is the defective project itself, of which the manufacturer is now contractually a part. There is no plausible deniability if you, as manufacturer, should have known, or in making qualifiers, show that you did know.

Think I'm quibbling?

We reviewed a project failure involving a $45M power plant pressure vessel collapse under partial vacuum. The vacuum breaker was sized for a steady-state condition, but clearly was undersized for the huge size of the fiberglass vessel.

When the plant was started up and made 85% of capacity, the order was given to shut down. Everyone shook hands, the owner reps, contractor reps, political regulatory reps all standing there under the vessel. A successful startup.

Valves were closed, maybe a little too fast, there is no record. The fiberglass vessel vacuum breaker wheezed then shrieked, the vessel huffed and hunched, oblated and split lengthwise, showering the collected reps with hot water.

That scalding bath was nothing like the scalding that the manufacturer got for not qualifying or otherwise protesting the vacuum breaker sizing, or for installing vacuum ribs in the vessel in anticipation.

The judgement was a $1M fine against the manufacturer, and the engineer went out of business shortly thereafter. All of the people associated with the project management lost their jobs or were re-assigned to mundane work tasks.

Think about that next time you just go for the gold. And I could tell you a dozen stories all the same sad ending. In this economy, where you gonna go with a black mark on you?

 

[ICman]

I think I worked for the same company Thor does. Actually, there are a LOT of companies (and people) with that attitude, and it seems more of the same popping up all the time.

Accountants run the show. "Good" is no longer included with "Fast" and "Cheap". When these companies buy something, they don't seem to care what its quality makeup is, just that it fits within their budget and they can get it when they need it.

Most engineers are concerned with Quality first (esp. as it relates to safety and reliability). In today's economic climate, unless your product could bring on a liable suit, cost rules. Getting the product out faster leads to more sales.

Thor doesn't stand a chance. By making anything other than a comment, he might be fired for interferring with (i.e. losing) a sale. I knew companies that would fire him as a "troublemaker", just for repeating his comment.

I wish I knew how to change that attitude, but I'm at a loss...