Mark,
Sure it all must be carefully set up, like a serious real-life project.
I didn mean to tell them "it is just for fun, dont care".
Here at Siemens it is not unusual to request 4-5 toolmakers for projects
where we think it is necessary.
The idea was basically to extend such request to 10-15 toolmakers.
Now, the problem is that I have two variables: It is "toolmaker" and
"what to send him for requesting".
This makes me speak out the following statements:
1. I have to request one part by all "modes of request".
2. I have to do this a number of times for each mode to increase the
signal-to-noise-ratio.
3. I have to ask each toolmaker for more than one part, to filter "cheap
guys" and "expensive".
If you build the experiment carefully, and with enough toolmakers and
parts, there should be a sensible result at last ...
Regards
Juergen Bauer
PS: Who could be interested in doing this ?
Clemson ? Nottingham ? Somebody else ?
Juergen Bauer, Siemens AG, EC CS A PD
E-Mail: Juergen.Bauer@spy.siemens.de
Adress: Siemensstr. 13, 67346 Speyer, Germany
Phone: +49-6232-30-2501; Fax -2110
http://w2.siemens.de/ec/ecb/connect/auto/auto_b.htm
----Original Message-----
From: Mark Bannister [SMTP:app2web@appal.com]
Sent: Friday, October 16, 1998 10:25 PM
To: Bauer Juergen
Cc: 'Jay Jacobs'; clara colomer; rp-ml@bart.lpt.fi
Subject: Re: searching for help
The problem you will run into is that if this is not a serious request
to
build parts you will not get a well thought out quote. It takes a lot
of
time to do a tool quote and these folks are busy.
Also if you send out quotes randomly you will get an amazing range of
prices
that will make your 10-15% cost savings negligible.
Best way to conduct this experiment is to find somebody doing a very
large
project who will attract the tool maker's attention. Then I would
suggest
only sending three options:
1- 2D drawings with ISO views (but let mold builder know that 3D models
will
be supplied on build)
2- 2D drawings and 3D database (VRML won't help much, send IGES, STEP,
or
native CAD format as appropriate)
3- 2D, 3D and physical model.
I will suspect that for tool makers not employing extensive 3D
techniques
you will get a better price and faster response with the physical
models.
For tool makers using 3D tools you will see little difference between 2
& 3
(but they may say thankyou for the model-they do help) except for very
complicated tools.
You will also need to look at response time as it should be shorter for
options 2 & 3.
Mark Bannister
Bauer Juergen wrote:
> Ray,
>
> This is a great idea !
>
> One could compare the following four ways of RFQ:
> 1. Send 2D drawings on paper
> 2. Send 2D drawings and isometric views on paper
> 3. Send 2D drawings and isometric views on paper, together with 3D
> volume file on floppy (VRML format)
> 4. Send 2D drawings and isometric views on paper, together with
physical
> rapid prototype part.
>
> Then, one could request tools for four different parts by all four
> methods per toolmaker, so each toolmaker gets four different requests.
> naturally, you must permutate the parts to wipe out the effect of
> geometrical complexity differences.
> The parts should be complex with undercuts, curved parting lines,
small
> features, ...(connectors, hehehe), but not equal
> Examples: connector, mobile phone, pump housing, electric mirror
> housing.
>
> Who likes to do that ???
> Any researchers out there ?
>
> Regards
> Juergen << File: Card for Mark Bannister >>
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 - 22:46:55 EEST