Elaine,
I couldn't disagree more!
Everybody that I speak to IN the industry talks about this slow down
thats going on. Every day I speak to at least one person in the
manufacturing community that has NOT heard of RP. Why is it that we
insiders assume that our world is crashing in on us just because we have
beat the same old mailing lists to death for the past 6 or 7 years.
Manufacturers/SB's and others have beat the same conference attendees
over the head time and time again...I said in an earlier note that I
spoke to some vendor of Chrysler's that has never heard of the
technology and was absolutely astounded that there was not one of these
things in every garage around. I wonder if maybe the real truth is that
those that would predict the demise or even down turn in the industry
are basing this on the complete and utter saturation of a select few
mailing lists!
As for taking risks...
We use the technology in everyday production of the components that we
produce and have actively been soliciting new technologies for
purchase. We push the limits of our in-house facility every day and
consistently learn of new ways that we can use our equipment. While the
outright purchase of "unproven" technologies may not happen we would
(and have) purchase technologies that are in the beginning stages of
development. The key here is that they must make sense for us! Don't
confuse the risks involved with the development and production of a new
manufacturing technology with other factors that resulted in some of the
below listed technologies not continuing at there respective company.
There were many other factors involved in the decisions that would
ultimately decide their fate!
Having read your response that included remarks about the user group
meeting...You should have mentioned that well over half of the attendees
were 1st timers and I wonder if the reaction to your question was
because they are the folks that run the equipment and are not part of
the purchase decision. And I did raise my hand to your question!
Great topic!
Karl
Elaine Hunt wrote:
>
> Since the only change one can achieve is within one's self then
> technology's usefulness becomes a personal risk decision.
>
> Maybe the reason RP&M seems to be losing steam is due to the fact that one
> can achieve personal productivity through traditional methods with fewer
> risks.
>
> Also with industrial cutbacks in both research and employees, why should
> the individual employee risk productivity in order to change something they
> have little influence upon. Taking a chance on an unproven technology does
> not seem to be apart of the industrial culture anymore. If it were then we
> would see the TI Protojet, the Dupont Solid Imager, and the 3M KelTool
> along with the IBM Genisys.
>
> It seems to be easier to pass the buck than take the risk.
>
> *******************************************************************
> Opinions, suggestions, and other controversial matter VOID where prohibited.
> ******************************************************************
> Elaine T. Hunt, Director
> Clemson University Laboratory to Advance Industrial Prototyping
> 206 Fluor Daniel Bldg. Clemson, SC 29643-0925
> 864-656-0321 (voice) 864-656-4435 (fax)
> elaine.hunt@ces.clemson.edu
> http://chip.eng.clemson.edu/rp/persall/elaine.html
>
> For more information about the rp-ml, see http://ltk.hut.fi/rp-ml/
For more information about the rp-ml, see http://ltk.hut.fi/rp-ml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jun 05 2001 - 22:45:14 EEST