Doing the work of others 11

Hello all! I am working on a project that has become a nightmare! I work for a small design firm that designs pressure vessels for various installations. Recently we were awarded a contract for a single unit.

Ever since, we have held the customers hand through every step of the way. They call nearly everyday with process changes and operating scenarios. While this is irritating and something that should have been thought about in the design phase, it is a managable nuisance (for now at least).

The main problem is the unwillingness to make their own decisions. To my understanding, everything in the plant except the unit in our scope has a backup system or unit. They are insisting that our unit be redundant as well, but will not buy another unit because they failed to budget for it in their initial estimate. This has led to many difficulties.

For example: They want us to do a hazard analysis of the unit we are designing... including a list of all possible equipment that could fail and all situations that would lead to the item failing.

I contend that this is not our responsibility since we have no knowledge of the plant (we are only designing a single pressure vessel).

I have a feeling that these guys don't have a clue what they are doing and are trying to cover up mistakes that were made a long time ago. (they have told us to hold off on progress reports because they would be viewed in a negative light by their management) Has anyone had an experience like this before?? I am trying to handle this in a professional manner, but it is difficult to continue to waste my time dealing with issues our customer should handle on their own. Am I wrong for feeling this way?

Best Regards and thanks in advance!

Frustrated Engineer

 

[TheBlacksmith]

This behavior may be grounded in their own lack of knowledge. They are not comfortable evaluating your work or making decisions because they are paralyzed by fear. Perhaps if you preface your deliverables with some generic comments about how such systems operate in general. For my customer, I strive to make each document "stand alone", it doesn't guarantee success, but not doing it has usually been a holdup until I provide some "background" info. I doubt your customer will change, I guess you will have to decide if the work is worth the extra effort required.

Blacksmith

 

[PSE]

Several possibilities could be coming into play here. As the Blacksmith indicated, this could be due to your customer's lack of knowledge. It is possible that your firm was hired with the "expectation" that your firm would "take the lead" in providing the solutions to their application problems (ie the hazard analysis). This level of support (just as important as the product specifications) should have been clarified early in the contracting phase. If it was not, it would be helpful to do it now as your firm may end up assuming more and more liability along with the design responsibility. If your firm is also to manufacture or coordinate the manufacturing of the vessel, again you have assumed greater responsibility.

Is the nature of their original application changing due to other external factors (regulatory changes etc)? The dreaded "feature creep" can happen do to either responding to these factors or the "gee whiz wouldn't it be nice if ..." factors. Try to find out which may be the case.

On the plus side, you have ongoing communication with your customer. From the business end, if jumping through all of these additional hoops and hurdles lands further work (with the same customer or through a good referral), then it may be worth the headaches. If not, perhaps cut your losses and refer them to another design firm who may better suit their needs. That at least may leave them again with a good impression of your firm (and possible future business referalls).

PSE

 

[melone]

By making you consider factors that are "out of your control", it forces communication between you and your customer. It would be great if every company can work as its own universe, but the reality is that your output is going to have to interface with someone elses input. I agree that it is very frustrating when you have to tell your customer how THEIR machines will be affected by a malfunction of your component, but these conversations can cause the light bulb to go off in someones head.

Case in point, I design automobile engine controllers and one of the requirements that my customer demanded of me is that I define ALL the potential problems that could occur if my circuit fails. My customer requires my circuits to meet very specific criteria. However, on one particular circuit, I met all stated criteria, but asked a simple quesiton, "what happens if this output gets shorted high?" Their response was that the engine could roll backwards during a power off condition and cause the manifold to explode when next time the engine was started!

Obviously, this is a major problem. However, my circuit did EXACTLY what they requested. Does that mean that I have no responsibility for giving my customer a module that will not blow up the manifold (and potentially hurt / kill some poor mechanics)? I have always viewed my job as being someone who gives that customer what they WANT, and not necessarily what they ASK FOR. Part of these time-consuming customer driven exercises is to make sure the smart people are actually taking everything into consideration. Try to take their requests as a compliment, they obviously have a high opinion of you and your technical knowledge!

Good luck and keep us posted!!!

 

[redtrumpet]

Some things to consider:

1. Risk should be proportionate to compensation. As a design firm for one component you are probably being paid peanuts in relation to the cost of the project, therefore should you be assuming the risk of doing the hazop analysis? This should be the responsibility of the prime consultant, I think. In this case it sounds like the client is acting as prime consultant and is incompetent, so I think you have to refuse to do the hazop and walk away from the project if required. Alternatively, do the hazop if you feel competent and charge the client commensurately for the expanded scope of service and increased risk to your firm.

2. In future, agree on a well-defined scope of work and services before proceeding. State your design criteria if the client doesn't provide any, and refuse to proceed until the client approves the design criteria. Make the client aware they will be hit with a change order every time they ask you to deviate from the agreed-upon scope or the design criteria. Issue documents for "review", "approval", and "construction" only. Don't issue "progress prints", "preliminary drawings", or "conceptual drawings". This opens the door for a never-ending revision cycle. Give the client an appropriate amount of time to review the documents at each of the three issues and advise that any extra costs due to delays in reviewing documents, or major changes to same, will be billed accordingly by your firm.

Make an effort to educate the client, if you can't come to an understanding be prepared to walk away.

 

[Sean2]

I sympathise with you in your dealings with the client, and complement the respondents in offering very good advice. Different directions are suggested by different responses.

There are some things you want to protect, as you decide what to do (if anything), and you will have to prioritise these for yourself:

Safety (Speaks for itself)
Reputation (Get more work from the industry)
Client Relationship (Get more work from this client)
Quality (Speaks for itself)

What "redtrumpet" suggests could be part of a company system which you would apply to all your work. This system could be a Quality Assurance system. Such a system would require you to define the brief and scope of work, the timescale, the budget, and the terms of engagement at the beginning, before you do any significant work. This should take care of many (though probably not ALL) "what if"s in your dealings with the client. (Such as, "What if we want to make a change just before you go to the manufacturing/assembly stage?&quot

Your system could include a standard form to confirm the client's instructions when he requests a change or additional work, informing him of the cost implications (both for design and for manufacturing/construction) and requiring him to sign and return the form to authorize the work to proceed. If it's standardised, you can "blame the system" for producing the form, so that it's not so damaging to your relationship if the client doesn't like it. It's important to have the form in place, as a marker that changes were made and costs changed even if you think the client is unlikely to pay these costs.

If your quality system doesn't include a similar mechanism, perhaps this should be introduced at or before the next scheduled review of the system. This is one obvious situation where your quality system can be shown to add value to your activities.

I agree with redtrumpet that it is best to agree in advance, as far as you can, what the client wants and what he will pay for it, as well as how you deal with variations during the project.

I wish you luck with this, and I would be very interested to read how you get on with this problem in time.

 

[JamesBarlow]

I am also a pressure vessel designer so I think I may have a little insight into your situation. I don't know what type of vessels you design, but in my case I make high pressure vessels for use in isostatic pressing of ceramic powders.

Most of our customers are similar to car buyers. They know what they want, i.e. a vehicle that will take them from point A to point B. They rely entirely on the car maker for the details of the vehicle. Most of our customers are the same. They know very little about the mechanics and process that makes it possible to press their parts. All they know is that they put stuff in and take stuff out(I know, it's not that simple). They rely on me as the vessel expert to guide them along in the installation and operation of their new machine.

As they learn more about the process they begin to ask questions that they didn't think of before. This is just part of the process of selling a machine that they have never used before. Some customers do start to get a little bothersome with all their questions, but I keep reminding myself that they are asking ME the questions because I am the expert. Their isn't anyone else who can answer these questions.

If the changes start to get out of hand I will let management take over about increasing the cost of the machine, or limiting the modifications.

 

[etch]

Once again you have to ask what your sales manager or company manager offered at the initial contract approval. In my experience at these meeting, they tend to promise the world to secure the contract, and as such might have agreed to do all the hazard assessments and take the lead in the project.

One way that would possible help is to have one of thier engineers/ managers onsite in your company that is familiar with the contract. We had a simialr situation in the past, and alot of the problems was resolved by having someone in authority onsite that you could bounce ideas off of.

 

[redtrumpet]

You may want to check out the loss control bulletins, including the Ten Commandments of Good Practice, located at

http://www.encon.ca/english/lcb/

 

[austim]

Redtrumpet,

That link is just brilliant. I just wish that I had known about it when I tried to explain to one of our largest consultants that they could not be covered under my PI policy, and that their standard conditions for subconsultants were invalid .