"Tom Watson" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 15:01:59 -0500, "MikeWhy"
wrote:


"Tom Veatch" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 01:57:22 -0500, "MikeWhy"
wrote:



I must have missed the apologetic tone and the vow to do better next
time.
It read like a rant about careless vendors and the triumph of succesful
non-documentation.


I must have missed something also. From the OP it seems the design was
perfectly well documented:

We insisted that our suppliers used a current version of the program,
so that we could provide plate drawings that were essentially design
drawings, and so that the supplier could open up the file and see the
details that might not have been included in the plates.

When I opened up the design file on the computer I found a perfectly
executed description of the bolted connection, including all of the
measurements for the weld nut and its use in the connection. It
showed the 16 gage U bend and the hex nut welded behind.

but that the supplier failed to read the detailed descriptions in the
CAD file..

As did the original project team that sent subsequent, incomplete, and
conflicting detail. So much for clearly described and easily accessible in
the CAD file. In Tom's apocryphal tale, the matter wasn't fully resolved
without esoterica from the Machinery's Handbook.

We're a culture of people entirely too eager to deflect blame elsewhere.
Middle management everywhere, in fact, selects on finger pointing and CYA
as
strong secondary traits. Point it fast, and make sure it sticks, because
**** ups happen. Ironically enough, messr watson followed up to query
whether English was my first language. Is it at all surprising that a
foreign supplier, only slightly less so than a native English speaking
supplier, might read the phrase "WELD NUT" on a contract document, and
duly
weld a nut at the specified location?

Instead of a lighthearted recounting of how **** happens, we get instead a
war whoop of sorts, a memoire of how we once stuck it to the bad guys. No
thanks, Man. I think it could have been better handled.



Do you not understand that the CAD file contained the details needed
to make the parts? That the file contained the part drawings? That
the file contained the assembly drawings showing how the parts went
together? AYTFS?

Sure. I read that, Tom. What of it? They missed it. Your guys missed it.
They had a "plate" indicating "WELD NUT". Are we done yet?