Ping John Larkin: Question on MAX
in [Design]
|
From: krw on 30 May 2010 10:56 On Sat, 29 May 2010 12:43:58 GMT, nico(a)puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel) wrote: >"Joel Koltner" <zapwireDASHgroups(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >>"Nico Coesel" <nico(a)puntnl.niks> wrote in message >>news:4c004c6d.892986843(a)news.planet.nl... >>> "Joel Koltner" <zapwireDASHgroups(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>We have ORCAD CIS and no, it doesn't, AIUI: If you want to change, e.g., a >>>>resistor's value only (but it's still the same old 0603 generic resistor >>>>otherwise), you can to use "change database part" and go find the new, e.g., >>>>1.12k, 0603 resistor. In most cases that's a lot more mouse clicks that >>>>double-clicking one on the part's value, entering the new value, and calling >>>>it good. >>> Yes, but you'll have a lot of work afterwards to edit and check the >>> BOM. At lot of chances to introduce errors a well. >> >>The idea is that you don't have to check the BOM -- you're guaranteed that if >>all you did was change a "generic" resistor's value from 220ohms to 470ohms, >>your new BOM is correct. > >Yes, but the internal/external order codes are still missing. How >about tolerances and package sizes? > >>> Make sure you can add parts yourself. >> >>Ho, ho... yeah, well, that isn't going to fly at many places I've been. At >>one place, even after demonstrating that on average something like 1 in 10 >>parts had errors in them (albeit many of them minor, such as incorrect >>electrical pin types, lack of overbars, etc. -- perhaps 1 in 40 had "board >>killer" errors such as the wrong footprint or wrong pin numbers), management > >I don't know where you are from, but over here it is customary to >simply ignore management when it comes to obvious mistakes. Anyway, if >for some reason the parts database contains errors then its useless. >You'll need to do the work yourself one way or the other (either >maintaining the parts database or editing the BOM by hand). Perhaps >management can be enlightened by showing them how many hours you lose >by having to do tedious administrative tasks over and over again. I have never impressed management by demonstrating how many hours are lost, as long as the project completed (more or less) on time. As long as those hours got squeezed into the schedule somehow, good enough. Even when I was contracting (and paid big-$ overtime), management didn't appreciate my ROI calculations on a second monitor (less than a week ;). >IMHO the actual profit from a parts database comes from having to deal >with tolerances, footprints, order numbers, etc only once for each >part.
From: Joerg on 30 May 2010 11:38 krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: > On Sat, 29 May 2010 12:43:58 GMT, nico(a)puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel) wrote: > >> "Joel Koltner" <zapwireDASHgroups(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>> "Nico Coesel" <nico(a)puntnl.niks> wrote in message >>> news:4c004c6d.892986843(a)news.planet.nl... >>>> "Joel Koltner" <zapwireDASHgroups(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>> We have ORCAD CIS and no, it doesn't, AIUI: If you want to change, e.g., a >>>>> resistor's value only (but it's still the same old 0603 generic resistor >>>>> otherwise), you can to use "change database part" and go find the new, e.g., >>>>> 1.12k, 0603 resistor. In most cases that's a lot more mouse clicks that >>>>> double-clicking one on the part's value, entering the new value, and calling >>>>> it good. >>>> Yes, but you'll have a lot of work afterwards to edit and check the >>>> BOM. At lot of chances to introduce errors a well. >>> The idea is that you don't have to check the BOM -- you're guaranteed that if >>> all you did was change a "generic" resistor's value from 220ohms to 470ohms, >>> your new BOM is correct. >> Yes, but the internal/external order codes are still missing. How >> about tolerances and package sizes? >> >>>> Make sure you can add parts yourself. >>> Ho, ho... yeah, well, that isn't going to fly at many places I've been. At >>> one place, even after demonstrating that on average something like 1 in 10 >>> parts had errors in them (albeit many of them minor, such as incorrect >>> electrical pin types, lack of overbars, etc. -- perhaps 1 in 40 had "board >>> killer" errors such as the wrong footprint or wrong pin numbers), management >> I don't know where you are from, but over here it is customary to >> simply ignore management when it comes to obvious mistakes. Anyway, if >> for some reason the parts database contains errors then its useless. >> You'll need to do the work yourself one way or the other (either >> maintaining the parts database or editing the BOM by hand). Perhaps >> management can be enlightened by showing them how many hours you lose >> by having to do tedious administrative tasks over and over again. > > I have never impressed management by demonstrating how many hours are lost, as > long as the project completed (more or less) on time. As long as those hours > got squeezed into the schedule somehow, good enough. ... That can be changed in a jiffy. On my first job the company (initially) thought that marketeers were more important than engineers. We had three CAD stations and since we needed those a lot that meant some night work. One day when I saw yet another marketeer writing some sales letter during the day on one station I had it. Went to the director of engineering and told him that I will not come in at night anymore, starting today, and that the schedule I signed would not be honored unless there are no more marketeers down in that room. And that they should spend less on perks and buy their own PC instead. Alternatively they could go to the back of the line, pick a number and come in at 3:00am. It took about two minutes and the problem was solved :-) Despite all that I later dated a gal from the same marketing department, she is now my wife ... > ... Even when I was > contracting (and paid big-$ overtime), management didn't appreciate my ROI > calculations on a second monitor (less than a week ;). > Sometimes they should look, they'd be surprised how much lower in cost projects can come in with external engineers. >> IMHO the actual profit from a parts database comes from having to deal >> with tolerances, footprints, order numbers, etc only once for each >> part. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM.
From: Joerg on 30 May 2010 12:34 krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: > On Sun, 30 May 2010 08:38:54 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: > >> krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: [...] >>> ... Even when I was >>> contracting (and paid big-$ overtime), management didn't appreciate my ROI >>> calculations on a second monitor (less than a week ;). >>> >> Sometimes they should look, they'd be surprised how much lower in cost >> projects can come in with external engineers. > > Just add up the cost hiring of employees. The down side is that sometimes > contractors with the appropriate experience are hard to find, particularly > ones willing to work on-site. Yes, they are often hard to find. But they can be more loyal than employees. If an employee quits after a number of years he's gone. He can't be there for you even if he wanted to because he's got a new fulltime job, plus a family, and so on.. A consultant or contractor can usually be called in again. I had clients from the early 90's who called me in on a problem 15 years later. The fact that I have moved across an ocean in the meantime didn't matter, if you want to be found you can and will be found by them (I gave all of them my new address, just in case). On-site, yep, that can be a problem. But when one thinks hard about it, how many times is that really really necessary? Most of the time clients just send me the whole chebang to diagnose in my own lab. Other times I fly out there for a few days. Sometimes it's a long trip, like one to Korea but that was necessary because I needed to train their engineers so that the EMI problems they had wouldn't happen again on their next design. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM.
From: krw on 30 May 2010 12:50 On Sun, 30 May 2010 09:34:02 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: >> On Sun, 30 May 2010 08:38:54 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >> >>> krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: > >[...] > >>>> ... Even when I was >>>> contracting (and paid big-$ overtime), management didn't appreciate my ROI >>>> calculations on a second monitor (less than a week ;). >>>> >>> Sometimes they should look, they'd be surprised how much lower in cost >>> projects can come in with external engineers. >> >> Just add up the cost hiring of employees. The down side is that sometimes >> contractors with the appropriate experience are hard to find, particularly >> ones willing to work on-site. > > >Yes, they are often hard to find. But they can be more loyal than >employees. If an employee quits after a number of years he's gone. He >can't be there for you even if he wanted to because he's got a new >fulltime job, plus a family, and so on.. A consultant or contractor can >usually be called in again. I had clients from the early 90's who called >me in on a problem 15 years later. The fact that I have moved across an >ocean in the meantime didn't matter, if you want to be found you can and >will be found by them (I gave all of them my new address, just in case). Consultants are more loyal because they can be bought. ;-) Employees really want to be part of the family. They're going to live there, they might as well be. >On-site, yep, that can be a problem. But when one thinks hard about it, >how many times is that really really necessary? Most of the time clients >just send me the whole chebang to diagnose in my own lab. Other times I >fly out there for a few days. Sometimes it's a long trip, like one to >Korea but that was necessary because I needed to train their engineers >so that the EMI problems they had wouldn't happen again on their next >design. Tell that to managers. They like to think they're in control. They like to think having someone on site puts them in control. I suppose if you don't trust the person, at least you can make sure they put in the hours. Conversely, being off-site can have its problems, too. The big-picture can be missed, or expectations can be completely unrealistic.
From: Joel Koltner on 31 May 2010 20:10
Hi Keith, <krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote in message news:kcu406lla4kc1kp5vfn42cuubjfc6o32fv(a)4ax.com... > Our "value" and "P/N" fields are separate so that only the value is printed > on > the schematic, not the entire P/N. Yeah, that's what we presently do as well... the part numbers are long enough that you'd end up with rather cluttered schematics if they were always on, although I suppose some places might have them on by default and then have the guy drawing the schematic just turn them off for individual components in areas that too become too dense. > We *can* add parts, but leave it to the "component engineer", who also is > the > layout guy. I'll make OrCad symbols and put them in my own library. He > pulls > them from there and checks all the information before putting it in a > "standard" library. We can't add (or modify) parts, but otherwise we do the same thing. > He was likely given the position without the time or perhaps authority to do > the job properly. Management is often does things like that. Yes, I'd accept that he had too many tasks to perform that were more company business-critical than fixing parts libraries. However, I don't see any good excuse for why he'd make that claim while simultaneously refusing to allow some of the engineers to go and clean things up (and they had volunteered to do so). Management eventually leaned on him, telling him he either had to start fixing errors in a timely manner or allow other to do so in his stead, and since he didn't like either of those options, he chose to quite instead. ---Joel |