Pillar to Post: Peter Welander's Blog 
Recent Posts
- 3.6 billion gallons per day
- China's new slogan
- India's lessons of high energy costs
- Risks of wireless pioneering
- Has oil peaked?
- Fighting global warming like sheep
- Go to a virtual trade show & conference
- Happy World Environment Day!
- Airlines struggle with fuel cost too
- GM acknowledges painful reality
Recent Comments
- Patrick Rafter on Go to a virtual trade show & conference
- Bubba210 on Where your gas money goes
- Mark on GM acknowledges painful reality
- Qukler on I am not a socialist
- rich merritt on I am not a socialist
Most Commented On
- Chinese pharma plants go un-inspected? (2)
- I am not a socialist (2)
- GM acknowledges painful reality (1)
- Go to a virtual trade show & conference (1)
- Where your gas money goes (1)
Archives
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
Blog
Link This | Email this | Blog This | Comments (0)
Thoughts from MCAA, part 2
2. You involve a system integrator to make choices for you. That also works, but adds cost.
3. You put someone on your own engineering staff who is qualified to make the right equipment specifications internally. This works, but someone like this who is really good will add to your internal costs. (If you are a purchasing person who wants the lowest price, this can work in your favor if the engineer's salary and benefits are on somebody else's budget.)If you try to avoid all three, you can play the percentages and hope to make purchases that aren't too far off. Some choices will be bad and may need to be replaced as you eliminate weak links from the process chain. The key is to keep the reason for bad choices obscure.One estimate I heard at the MCAA meeting was that easily one-third of instrumentation devices operating in plants today are either not specified well or are installed incorrectly. If that's true, it doesn't bode well for your long term success as a gambler. If you do the math and compare the cost of replacing even 20% of your purchases against the cost of making better choices, you lose. If you add in the costs of lost production, additional maintenance time, etc., you probably lose in the long term if you have to replace even 5% of your devices compared with the additional costs of making more informed purchasing decisions.Shall we give the wheel a spin?
Thoughts from MCAA, part 2
May 23, 2007
Yesterday's post discussed the idea that information on instrumentation has been separated from sources of actual instrumentation products, and that buyers want to eliminate all the buying costs that they possibly can. The inevitable result of that is buyers can find themselves making uninformed choices more often than they'd like. How do you as the customer and company that needs the equipment make an informed choice?
1. You buy things the old fashioned way and involve a qualified representative that can offer appropriate advice. The price will likely be a bit higher, but could be well worth it.2. You involve a system integrator to make choices for you. That also works, but adds cost.
3. You put someone on your own engineering staff who is qualified to make the right equipment specifications internally. This works, but someone like this who is really good will add to your internal costs. (If you are a purchasing person who wants the lowest price, this can work in your favor if the engineer's salary and benefits are on somebody else's budget.)If you try to avoid all three, you can play the percentages and hope to make purchases that aren't too far off. Some choices will be bad and may need to be replaced as you eliminate weak links from the process chain. The key is to keep the reason for bad choices obscure.One estimate I heard at the MCAA meeting was that easily one-third of instrumentation devices operating in plants today are either not specified well or are installed incorrectly. If that's true, it doesn't bode well for your long term success as a gambler. If you do the math and compare the cost of replacing even 20% of your purchases against the cost of making better choices, you lose. If you add in the costs of lost production, additional maintenance time, etc., you probably lose in the long term if you have to replace even 5% of your devices compared with the additional costs of making more informed purchasing decisions.Shall we give the wheel a spin?
Posted by Peter Welander on May 23, 2007 | Comments (0)
Advertisement
Advertisements
