I’m off tomorrow morning to Nashville for a creditor meeting. Same company, different creditor. This group has advanced $1,000,000 to teh company and is somewhat miffed at the prospect of not getting paid. My mission is to soothe and delay. I’ll be there for only 20 hours, but I’m thinkin’ that that is enough time to also get discovered as the next great country music star.
After that I fly to Youngstown, the garden spot of Ohio, to look at a public shell (a fully formed and fully reporting SEC qualified company). If all works out we will do a reverse merger into the company we represent.
Other than that, I gots nuthin’. Actually, I gots stuff, but it would just be whining so I’m sticking with nuthin’.
I haven’t been following the the GM ignition switch story much, but I saw and read some excerpts from the Senate hearings where senators were aghast that GM didnt change the part number of the switch after they made some changes to it. The GM CEO, whoever she is, was an idiot in her responses too. No one asked about the ECO process at GM and their policy on changing part numbers; no one asked if there are other parts that GM revises and if they change the part numbers. No asked if the parts were revision controlled or lot controlled.
In my manufacturing experience, you rarely change a part number. Change the revision, sure, but not the part number unless it is a major change affecting form, fit, or function. From what I’ve read about the change to the switch, it didnt need a new part number.
When you change a part number, you have bill of material changes that have to happen, part list changes that have to happen, inventory/warehouse changes that have to happen, purchase order changes, drawing changes, etc., and all that costs a lot of money. That’s just the way it goes. From what I’ve read, the accusation is that GM by not changing the part number, was trying to hide the fact that they knew they had a faulty part. That’s a possibility, but that they didnt change the part number doesn’t necessarily lead to that conclusion.
From the inventory side, there’s three things that normally define a part: the part number, the revision level of the part, and the lot or batch number. Depending on the industry, you may control things only at the part number level. Other industries, particularly the medical device field, control things down to the batch level so at any one time, they know that such and such part number at a specific revision made at a certain time by a certain vendor is in whatever unit they build.
When Mrs Sven’s company had a recall a few years ago due to a faulty part, and it is quite similar to the problem GM had in that the part would fail only under a very specific set of circumstances, they ended up recalling and scrapping over 3 million parts. Did they change the part number of the new parts? No. They pulled back the old batches of parts from the field, the warehouse, and customers, and replaced them with parts that had the same part number, in identical packaging, and a new lot number.
I don’t know what prompted the questions during the hearings about not changing the part number, and maybe the ECO process at GM indicated that the part number should have been changed, but the fact that the CEO appeared to not have a clue about their internal processes made her look stupid and covering up.
I probably should mention, depending on the company and its system, that there other ‘things’ that can define a part, like characteristics. If I’m making marbles, all my marbles of a particular size and material may have one part number. However, color may be a characteristic so that even though my marbles have the same part number, I can distinguish the red ones from the blue ones from the green ones, etc.
I’d bet a lot of money that no one on that senate panel, especially an idiot like Barbara Boxer, has any experience in a manufacturing environment.
G’morning from flash flood advisoried and Happy Larryville, GN! (Not too worried as the warning is for creeks and stuff, plus we’re on a hill.)
Happy Birfday 2/7, RabBeet; hope you enjoyed some extra-special cereal last night!!11!!
Today’s thread pic is another good ‘un, Mac; is that cat planning to pull a ginormous heist at teh Fancy Feast factory?
TeX --
Sorry you’re having to deal with carp from Hawaii again and hope you can nip this round in the bud. Tarnation!
BBL.
A blessed Sabbath, Gerbil Nation!
Good morning, Flash-flood Fatwa!
Hoppy birthday, II of 7, RaBbiT!
TeX -- ditto what Fatwa said. Hugs, prayers, and smishes.
GOOD MORNING EVERYONE!
Greetings from delightful (finally) Bountiful.
I sure do hope y’all have a super day, ’cause you just know I will.
HAPPY BIRFDAY TO RABEET!
We miss you here at teh Wheel.
Healing prayers for Mrs. Sven and TeX.
I’m off tomorrow morning to Nashville for a creditor meeting. Same company, different creditor. This group has advanced $1,000,000 to teh company and is somewhat miffed at the prospect of not getting paid. My mission is to soothe and delay. I’ll be there for only 20 hours, but I’m thinkin’ that that is enough time to also get discovered as the next great country music star.
After that I fly to Youngstown, the garden spot of Ohio, to look at a public shell (a fully formed and fully reporting SEC qualified company). If all works out we will do a reverse merger into the company we represent.
Heya, Mr. Atrick!
What’s your country stage name…”Pantsless Jerry” Conway? Jerry “Skidmarks” Haggard? Cletus G. Erbille?
Hope your commutes are uneventful and your business goals met!
Good morning and happy 2-Birthday, Rabbit!
Safe travels, Jerry.
Other than that, I gots nuthin’. Actually, I gots stuff, but it would just be whining so I’m sticking with nuthin’.
I haven’t been following the the GM ignition switch story much, but I saw and read some excerpts from the Senate hearings where senators were aghast that GM didnt change the part number of the switch after they made some changes to it. The GM CEO, whoever she is, was an idiot in her responses too. No one asked about the ECO process at GM and their policy on changing part numbers; no one asked if there are other parts that GM revises and if they change the part numbers. No asked if the parts were revision controlled or lot controlled.
In my manufacturing experience, you rarely change a part number. Change the revision, sure, but not the part number unless it is a major change affecting form, fit, or function. From what I’ve read about the change to the switch, it didnt need a new part number.
Given you’ve had more manufacturing experience than I, do you think there might be a legal and/or PR angle to doing so?
When you change a part number, you have bill of material changes that have to happen, part list changes that have to happen, inventory/warehouse changes that have to happen, purchase order changes, drawing changes, etc., and all that costs a lot of money. That’s just the way it goes. From what I’ve read, the accusation is that GM by not changing the part number, was trying to hide the fact that they knew they had a faulty part. That’s a possibility, but that they didnt change the part number doesn’t necessarily lead to that conclusion.
From the inventory side, there’s three things that normally define a part: the part number, the revision level of the part, and the lot or batch number. Depending on the industry, you may control things only at the part number level. Other industries, particularly the medical device field, control things down to the batch level so at any one time, they know that such and such part number at a specific revision made at a certain time by a certain vendor is in whatever unit they build.
When Mrs Sven’s company had a recall a few years ago due to a faulty part, and it is quite similar to the problem GM had in that the part would fail only under a very specific set of circumstances, they ended up recalling and scrapping over 3 million parts. Did they change the part number of the new parts? No. They pulled back the old batches of parts from the field, the warehouse, and customers, and replaced them with parts that had the same part number, in identical packaging, and a new lot number.
I don’t know what prompted the questions during the hearings about not changing the part number, and maybe the ECO process at GM indicated that the part number should have been changed, but the fact that the CEO appeared to not have a clue about their internal processes made her look stupid and covering up.
I probably should mention, depending on the company and its system, that there other ‘things’ that can define a part, like characteristics. If I’m making marbles, all my marbles of a particular size and material may have one part number. However, color may be a characteristic so that even though my marbles have the same part number, I can distinguish the red ones from the blue ones from the green ones, etc.
I’d bet a lot of money that no one on that senate panel, especially an idiot like Barbara Boxer, has any experience in a manufacturing environment.
Sven --
Thank you very much for that detailed explanation and your thoughts.
Just got back from a dinner out to celebrate MamaK & PapaK’s 50th Anniversary.
I don’t think I’ll eat again until Wednesday.
*Ooof*