Jump to content

Andy Y

Hornby - New tooling - Large Prairie

Recommended Posts

39 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

Clearly the carbon footprint of surface travel is so radically different to flying as to be beyond rational comparison.  But it's not as simple as that; I suspect that the article writer's comparison was made on the basis of the emissions of the ship, train, and aircraft involved.  The surface journey took not far short of 3 weeks during which the carbon cost of the food provided and that of the people who sailed the ship, crewed the train, and sourced and prepared the food must be taken into account as well.  When you've done that, and added to the carbon bill of the surface journey, you must now subtract it from the aircraft journey's carbon bill, less the carbon cost of supplying and preparing the food on the aircraft and services at the airports.

 

I have no idea what these figures are, but reckon they probably level the playing field a bit, and certainly illustrate the complexity of making meaningful comparisons of carbon footprints.  The article is a fascinating insight into the culture and fun of surface travel, but not particularly informative about carbon footprints, and I will not be basing any of my planet saving decisions on it...

 

Actually, come to think of it, I'm 67, been trying all my life to do the right thing by the planet, and continually watched corporate greed, government policy, and following generations worsen the situation while I am mocked for my lifestyle.  Sod the planet, let the kids sort it out, it's not my problem any more...

 

(the last paragraph may or may not have been a miserable old git rant, or possibly tongue in cheek)

 

I don't see any valid reason for including the carbon footprint of food in those calculations, as the people involved would have been eating wherever they were and whatever they were doing.

 

John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Dunsignalling said:

If the premium models make (for instance) five times the profit per model, and they sell only a quarter of the numbers of the cheaper ones, they are still the bigger earner.

 

Volume alone is meaningless. Otherwise Bentley would be trying to out-produce Vauxhall. 

 

John


maybe but it’s not all about absolute profit.  It’s also about return on capital.  Which is better?  A 10% yield on £100 or a 2% yield on £1000?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Clearwater said:


maybe but it’s not all about absolute profit.  It’s also about return on capital.  Which is better?  A 10% yield on £100 or a 2% yield on £1000?

Given that the asset value of most of the Railroad tooling must by now have been written down close to zero, the yield from it should be outstanding.

 

It will have an inbuilt and substantial head start over anything requiring new investment which is, I suspect, a major reason for Hornby to continue with it. 

 

Hornby's competitors have little in the way of superannuated (but still usable) tooling to enable them to go after the same market, and I'd guess the perennial discussions about "range confusion" in Hornby products wouldn't encourage it either.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

Given that the asset value of most of the Railroad tooling must by now have been written down close to zero, the yield from it should be outstanding.

 

Yes, agreed!

 

The old tooling might be rubbish (in terms of model quality), but as you say it will have been depreciated on the books ever closer to zero asset value (standard accounting practice). Ironically, in real terms of decreasing the production cost, it's increased in operational value, and gives Hornby a big advantage over anyone who wants to try and compete. Especially if the same old tooling can be used for added-value ranges like TTTE and Hogwarts. You might call that money for old rope, I couldn't possibly comment.

 

M'Lady used to be the Production Director of a fairly big business (big enough to have a purchasing budget of more than £100 million a year). Part of her skills set was  extracting value from assets, capital and machinery that were way past their "best-before" date.  She called this "sweating the assets". The same appears to be true at Hornby, and well done to them.

 

People might suspect that there's very little profit on the sales of the Railroad range, or a very slim margin. I would agree. But something else (that many people are not even aware of) is the sheer size and scale of Volume Rebates that an effective purchasing department will get back from its major suppliers. I've not met any volume sales business that didn't do this (from food to computers to pharmaceuticals). Figures as high as 50% are not unusual, and can mean that in real terms, purchasing makes more profit than sales!

 

Just something else to be aware of before we poo-poo Hornby's production and marketing priorities any more.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Picking up our comments earlier today about Chinese New Year. I found this of interest on the Rails of Sheffield site about their Terrier tanks. It shows the CNY situation very well:

 

.......coincides with the shut down ready for Chinese New Year (25th January until 8th February). Production will not likely recommence in full until the third week of February and we regret we are unlikely to see these particular versions until April 2020 (possibly late March)......

 

Therefore if the Prairie tank locos are not on board the ship by next week, the production run won’t start until the end of Feb at the earliest. On the basis it’s a 6 week journey from China, maybe we won’t see the Prairie locos until April or May 2020. I would also suggest that @The Stationmaster Mike is spot on that someone messed up the production schedule for these locos.

 

If that’s the case, I wonder why....

 

The Rails article is here: https://railsofsheffield.com/news/articles/3272-terrier-update

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 15/01/2020 at 16:46, The Johnster said:

Stationmaster seems to be on the mark as he usually is about this sort of thing.  It is important to maintain the trust and confidence of your customers of course, and I have commented before about the damage delays and continually slipping lead times are doing to Bachmann's otherwise very good reputation.  Communication is easier and cheaper now in real time than at any previous period in history; I have a phone in my pocket on which I can have a face to face video conversation with someone in China now, this minute, if I want.  

 

We all know this and assume that Hornby are up to speed with what is happening on the ground 8.000 miles away where it's tomorrow already.  But, like the song says, it ain' nessiss errally so...  Hornby will be dealing with a main agent who may or may not be willing to impart information that his subcontracting factories and assembly plants may or may not be willing to impart to him, probably through a number of other people who each may or may not... you get the idea.  It is not just Chinese businessmen that play their cards close; SK is a dab hand at the game himself!  It's the way business red in toof an clore works; a smile in your face, a hand in your pocket, and a knife in your back.

 

Good reliable information is what we want, but there may be sound business reasons back down the chain not to give it to us; it's a highly competitive cuthroat jungle out there and we are a hobby largely of gentlemen to whom this is anathematic, or at least a culture shock.  Is it wise to continue production in China?  I don't know, or particularly worry, but it is a model that has served well for a good few decades providing us with a reliable supply of cheap, high quality models.  It has things about it that cause concern, though, such as Kader's Vietnam factory fire which burned down killing child labourers a few years ago.  It depends very much for it's effectiveness on 'just in time' ordering and delivering and minimising (odd word to type for some reason, doesn't look right when you're typing it) component orders, which is why you can't get spare parts, and if something misses it's tight delivery schedule in the early stages of production the knock on effect is considerable as there are no backup stores of parts or cash to acquire them.

 

Home production would probably be more expensive, but I can't believe it would be by a factor of twice, and it has an argument in it's favour in terms of shipping carbon output.  There is a current move to restrict the speed of container ships to reduce emissions, which will increase voyage times and further impact on point of sale price, so while it is still undoubtedly cheaper to source models from the Far East, the gap is continually narrowing.  But it will not happen if the cost of manufacture here equals that of Chinese supply, as investment capital must be sourced to rebuild UK factories.  China needs to be more expensive to a degree that makes this viable.  

 

Then there is the quality issue.  High quality RTR models have never been produced in the UK, and it is very easy for costs to get out of control; look what happened to Hornby Dublo.  The Chinese labour force is known to be very good at actually fabricating small parts and efficiently assembling them.  I am not convinced that UK production could afford to employ workers of the required quality or motivation; we have, sadly, become a low quality cheap labour producer of shoddy goods.   in general.

 

Containers have their own risks of course.  'Our' products are no more or less prone to being washed overboard in storms, the ship lost to storm or wreck, delayed or stolen by pirates on a route that passes through the South China Sea and the waters off Somalia, damaged, or delayed by customs or immigration officials investigating smuggling or people trafficking.  Bulk traffic is already starting to use the shorter Arctic route in summer, but it is still too risky for the fast container ships.  Traditional, pre-containerised, shipping suffered from similar issues of course, but one of 'our' containers will contain an entire order for the next 3 months or more for the whole company; if it is lost or delayed the manufacturer has to begin again from scratch, having to find a production slot in a factory before even starting to replace the lost models.  And, as his loss is indemnified at Lloyds by the shipping company, or should be, he has no monetary incentive to hurry this process; he's lost his profit, but he's not out of pocket beyond that.

 

There is I understand a weekly rail service from China to the UK now, but this is still subject to customs/immigration delays and targeted by smugglers and traffickers.  Quicker than the sea route but I assume more expensive, and so another cost implication.  And it cannot handle the quantity of containers of even one of the smaller deep sea trade container vessels, or even close!

 

I can only remember a handful of cases in 20 years of a container ship being lost and in virtually none of them did a ship simply go to the bottom. The MSC Napoli will be remembered by most, but although she was lost to storm, her cargo didn't exactly go to the bottom. I also remember the severe fire on the Hyundai (mis)Fortune some years ago, but while it seemed impossible that the ship could be saved from the first photos we saw , she was in fact saved with the loss of well under 10% of the containers (That was a westbound Far East sailing)

 

Far East vessels stay well north of the Somali pirates, who are not the issue they once were, and I don't recall serious damage to cargo from a customs inspection - which is a fairly rare event and simply imposes a few days to a week's delay. People smuggling in a container is fairly unlikely - the 25-30 day transit times see to that: any stowaways would emerge seeking food and water and be a problem for the crew.

 

And - for the record - the carrier does not provide marine cargo insurance, and their liability under Hauge-Visby or whatever is fairly minimal. It is the cargo owner's responsibility to insure his cargo - not the carrier's or shipowners

 

(Also - one of the worst places for storms and therefore lost containers is the North Atlantic in winter...)

  • Informative/Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Neal Ball said:

Picking up our comments earlier today about Chinese New Year. I found this of interest on the Rails of Sheffield site about their Terrier tanks. It shows the CNY situation very well:

 

.......coincides with the shut down ready for Chinese New Year (25th January until 8th February). Production will not likely recommence in full until the third week of February and we regret we are unlikely to see these particular versions until April 2020 (possibly late March)......

 

Therefore if the Prairie tank locos are not on board the ship by next week, the production run won’t start until the end of Feb at the earliest. On the basis it’s a 6 week journey from China, maybe we won’t see the Prairie locos until April or May 2020. I would also suggest that @The Stationmaster Mike is spot on that someone messed up the production schedule for these locos.

 

If that’s the case, I wonder why....

 

The Rails article is here: https://railsofsheffield.com/news/articles/3272-terrier-update

The Prairie was one of the models caught up in the sudden factory closure that also affected the Merchant Navy, Princess Royal and a few others. Nothing to do with someone messing up production schedules. 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Hilux5972 said:

The Prairie was one of the models caught up in the sudden factory closure that also affected the Merchant Navy, Princess Royal and a few others. Nothing to do with someone messing up production schedules. 


The story has changed then..... back in August, when they were due September, Simon Kohler told me the schedule had been changed as another loco took its slot. (Can’t recall if he said Terrier or Ruston). At that stage he said they would probably be here for December, failing that definitely January.

 

Maybe having been bumped, the next factory closed????

 

Although my main point is the effect of Chinese New Year. If they haven’t been shipped by next week, they won’t be made until week 3 Feb at the earliest. (Using that illustration from Rails)

Edited by Neal Ball
CNY
  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Clearwater said:


maybe but it’s not all about absolute profit.  It’s also about return on capital.  Which is better?  A 10% yield on £100 or a 2% yield on £1000?

Agree absolutely but it's also in Hornby's case at present about trying to sell more.  What they don't say but clearly imply is 'sell more at the same, already improved, margin' but that is obviously what they must mean if they are to improve their margin and return to profitability as well just increasing the size of the sales number in £s    In many respects that comes back to the same thing as your question albeit, obviously with far more complex numbers than your example.

 

However what also appears to have happened in the 2019 model year, and is happening again this year, is a deliberate attempt to both cash-in on the market impact of new higher price announcements or take advantage at a lower price point of models being introduced or which have been announced.   This must surely result in a change or addition to manufacturing and model range plans which were authorised for development well over a year (and perhaps as much as 2 years?) previously.  Thus Hornby are trying to now (but perhaps only for now?) not only serve a spread of model railway markets but also work in a mix of timescales for model introductions although thus far only one of those has involved new tooling.  This must increase pressure somewhere in the system unless they have been able to greatly expand their capacity to increase design capability and manufacture in particular.   Add to that working to a rigid annual announcement system which effectively concentrates some aspects of marketing into part of the year and you again get more pressure.  Does all that mean that some things will give or have to bend to accommodate others?

 

Which then must come back - in this context - to which, in what quantities, offers the better yield?  And maybe already fully amortised tooling, even with a need for new design of liveries, increases the yield significantly on that £100 but the yield on the £1,000 doesn't change? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd suggest that the release date is on, or about, English half-term. That's week 8-9.  We're now on..... Week 4? By that reckoning, we are due to await about another 4-5 weeks of anticipation.  My reasoning is that is the first period after Xmas where disposable income becomes more available from the Christmas break.

 

Well, that's when 'I' would release that particular model, if it was me. For Gawds sake, don't delay its release on my account,,,,

 

Ian.

  • Friendly/supportive 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All these different stories about why the Large Prairie has been delayed go back to what Mike was saying about communication and transparency. If Hornby were more open there would be less room for "Chinese Whispers". (Hah! See what I did there?)

 

Maybe Hornby can't be clear because, as others have suggested above, they don't actually know what's going on further down the supply chain.

 

However, if you were of a cynical frame of mind you might think that it's in Hornby's interest to obfuscate because it gives them more freedom to chop and change to suit their needs. Who's to say that even now the Prairie has not been bumped again in favour of something they consider to be "more important" in the 2020 range like, perhaps, a "SteamPunk" "model"? I'm being a bit mischevious there. :wink_mini:

 

 

Edited by Harlequin
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Hilux5972 said:

The Prairie was one of the models caught up in the sudden factory closure that also affected the Merchant Navy, Princess Royal and a few others. Nothing to do with someone messing up production schedules. 

I must have missed that.  When did Hornby announce it as it's a bit of task to source and plough through all their various official statements and press releases as supply chain difficulties have been mentioned on several occasions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 16/01/2020 at 11:00, The Stationmaster said:

I don't need a blow-by-blow account but equally I respect reasonably accurate information - after all even a non-manufacturing 'manufacturer' such as Hornby must have a handle on what its contracted factories are producing for it and when when they will be producing and shipping the goods because if nothing else they need to know where and when their investment money will be spent.  If they can't get production and distribution planning right or within a pretty clearly known tolerance how on earth are they going to beb able to plan the extremely important (to them) money numbers?   And of course they have had that problem for while and they call it 'supply chain difficulties'.

 

But even with 'supply chain difficulties' surely they ought to be able to make some reasonably accurate assessments of when product will arrive and, perhaps more importantly, set priorities in relation to which products will arrive when.  A succession of moving dates for a product well advanced in development (and in fact up to livery sample standard in this case) would imply to me either a lack of control, or a missed production slot and no real idea of when a new one will be secured, or the use of available slots for other products (for whatever reason).

 

Yes we all know, and I think can reasonably understand and accept that dates slip but let's not overlook the fact that us, and more critically retailers, are also working to financial plans (aka a budget) which can be thrown awry by all sorts of things.  Moreover once dates start to slip there is obviously a reason for it so why not say so?

Surely, when working to a budget, you have the money set aside for a delivery in Month x. If delivery times slip,  you simply set that allocated money to one side ready for delivery in Month Y, perhaps using the extra time to set a little extra aside to allow for any price increase? Your still purchasing the same model. And if any other new items take your fancy, you would have to save/allocate money for those in any case. 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

I must have missed that.  When did Hornby announce it as it's a bit of task to source and plough through all their various official statements and press releases as supply chain difficulties have been mentioned on several occasions.

 

Railway Modeller said that Merchant Navies , Pecketts and Azumas had been affected but it didn't mention anything else . Could the Prairies and Princesses just be a result of what has become a "normal" timelag?

 

Isn't Hornbys year end 31st March . Got to be in their interests to get them out and invoiced (therefor in sales and margins ) in the current year

 

Edited by Legend
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If year end is 31st March, does that mean that Q2 is July to September instead of April to June?  :wacko:

 

Al.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Harlequin said:

All these different stories about why the Large Prairie has been delayed go back to what Mike was saying about communication and transparency. If Hornby were more open there would be less room for "Chinese Whispers". (Hah! See what I did there?)

 

Also possible that there has been multiple reasons for the delay instead of just one.  Say getting bumped for something else (like say a second run of Terriers), and then the new schedule gets wrecked by something else happening...

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@The Stationmaster

I agree with much of what you say and agree the reality is more complex than the fairly short comment I made in response to @Dunsignalling’s motor industry analogy to make a point that maximising absolute profit isn’t always the right thing to do.  It’s no use having an item with more absolute profit per unit if you’ve not got the capital to pay for the tooling (or the working capital to fund the production).  You also need to know the size of the market you are playing into - back to the Bentley point.  Even if you can make an absolute higher profit, have the capital to invest in the product, if you can only sell a limited number it might not be as good a use of the production slot as another item with lower absolute profit.

 

I’m also not 100% convinced that measuring return on capital relative to amortised tooling cost is the right thing to do.  If tooling doesn’t comprise a large proportion of the cost of production of the item, then it may present a misleading figure.  If the binding constraint on someone like Hornby is the amount of production capacity at the factory, the profit per production run might be a better measure than that on capital.  As noted above, I might wish to look at a broader definition of capital than simply the tooling price.

 

If I had access to the data, I’d be wanting to understand the variations in both net and absolute margin per item, the assumptions underpinning tooling cost amortisation (eg all on first run or does something like the lovely looking new rocket assume multiple runs over a number of years whereas does the W1 and it’s allied variants imply that there’s doing pretty much a single run hence why each model is being released simultaneously in multiple liveries?) and the stock velocity (ie how long it sits on H’s books) and hence how quickly the production is converted from cash out to cash back in.  I suspect that there’s some value for them in really examining their pricing strategies.  If making decisions, I’d want to be looking at a variety of different metrics.

 

David

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With such a large release schedule for 2020, I hope the remains of the 2019 schedule (our Prairie) don't get squeezed for production time.

 

I have one on order at the moment and intend to do some PX for another..... but will any be left on the shelves? My assumption being that they are not in production yet. Presumably when the factories shut down for CNY they wont be half way through production of a loco.

 

The one ray of hope could be that I thought Hornby also have a factory in India? Maybe the closed factory might come back on stream..... Seems strange the comments about this have only been in Railway Modeller, nothing in BRM or Model Rail.

 

It would be interesting of Hornby were to comment more freely. I wonder why before Christmas there was news that the BR version was due around that time, yet that too is showing a Spring delivery now..... why the change? At the time H must have thought it was about to be on a boat....yet hadn't even been produced.

 

Maybe we could all lobby "Engine shed" for an update at the end of January..... although I guess that's potentially old embarrassing news and might take the shine off the 2020 schedule....

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Clearwater said:

@The Stationmaster

I agree with much of what you say and agree the reality is more complex than the fairly short comment I made in response to @Dunsignalling’s motor industry analogy to make a point that maximising absolute profit isn’t always the right thing to do.  It’s no use having an item with more absolute profit per unit if you’ve not got the capital to pay for the tooling (or the working capital to fund the production).  You also need to know the size of the market you are playing into - back to the Bentley point.  Even if you can make an absolute higher profit, have the capital to invest in the product, if you can only sell a limited number it might not be as good a use of the production slot as another item with lower absolute profit.

 

I’m also not 100% convinced that measuring return on capital relative to amortised tooling cost is the right thing to do.  If tooling doesn’t comprise a large proportion of the cost of production of the item, then it may present a misleading figure.  If the binding constraint on someone like Hornby is the amount of production capacity at the factory, the profit per production run might be a better measure than that on capital.  As noted above, I might wish to look at a broader definition of capital than simply the tooling price.

 

If I had access to the data, I’d be wanting to understand the variations in both net and absolute margin per item, the assumptions underpinning tooling cost amortisation (eg all on first run or does something like the lovely looking new rocket assume multiple runs over a number of years whereas does the W1 and it’s allied variants imply that there’s doing pretty much a single run hence why each model is being released simultaneously in multiple liveries?) and the stock velocity (ie how long it sits on H’s books) and hence how quickly the production is converted from cash out to cash back in.  I suspect that there’s some value for them in really examining their pricing strategies.  If making decisions, I’d want to be looking at a variety of different metrics.

 

David

For the non-accountants, have we actually sold enough to cover costs (a variant on the usual discussion with marketing where you add "its lovely but" at the start).

 

:)

Edited by Hal Nail
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing to bear in mind with fully amortised tooling, notably (most) Hornby Railroad and items like the Dapol LMS coaches, is that any return made from it has to be regarded as a bonus. The sheer quantities of product made from it that's already out there puts it in competition will be the second-hand market. The thing that sets it apart from current models is an inevitable familiarity; so no "Wow factor" and a lack of urgency in purchasing. 

 

From Hornby's viewpoint, that's just dandy, as the range, at least to some degree, will encourage continued spending in times when the flow of new product with those characteristics slows down, or is interrupted.   

 

Hornby has a back-catalogue of superannuated tooling that's broad enough to make an "economy" range work. Railroad serves a number of buyer types, newcomers, kids, those on tighter budgets (and those who have difficulty "justifying" what are luxuries for themselves), others who are fearful of damaging more detailed models and, of course, the "hackers", a fraternity of which I count myself part.

 

What it must not become, for the sake both of Hornby's "market leader" image and the company's future advancement, is too large or dominant a part of the overall business. Progress must come from development and that, in the case of Railroad, will mainly come from cascading of tooling that no longer fits the standards the main range has moved on to.   

 

John

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Legend said:

 

Railway Modeller said that Merchant Navies , Pecketts and Azumas had been affected but it didn't mention anything else . Could the Prairies and Princesses just be a result of what has become a "normal" timelag?

 

Isn't Hornbys year end 31st March . Got to be in their interests to get them out and invoiced (therefor in sales and margins ) in the current year

 


Perhaps the Prairie is a consequential: the Azumas and Pecketts were moved to the Prairie factory and then given priority?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps.  This is back to the 'open information' point; we want honest and accurate info from H, and I agree that this is a very important part of the relationship between the company and it's customers, but there has to be a balance.  H are as entitled as anyone else to a degree of commercial privacy as a fair part of competing with rivals, and don't want to disseminate info that might compromise this, and we are not really all that interested in what project has been moved to which factory/assembly facility, or when.  What we want to know is reliable and accurate info about when the model will be available to buy in the shops. or dispatched from the warehouse if we've pre-ordered.  

 

I have the impression that my view on this, that companies should honour expected delivery dates to the best of their ability, and be prompt and open when these dates cannot be met, may not be shared by the companies themselves.  I know that they may themselves be in the dark on such matters but they shouldn't be.  H are by no means the only offender or the worst in this regard.  It smacks of contempt for your customers on an Apple Corp. level, and of dishonesty; perhaps delivery estimates of the 'Q3 2020' sort are being used mendaciously to deter or otherwise manipulate the competition, and raises our expectations only for them to crash and burn.  We plan to buy these models, and money put aside that has to be kept aside is not available until later for other projects; to take myself as an example, I'm hanging on to cash for a Baccy 94xx which I have prioritised to the detriment of my plan to buy more Comet coach kits.  And I've been doing so for a while now...

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For Hornby I suspect they don’t want to say anything that might negatively affect their share price and therefore their shareholders. They seem to be more important than us, their customers. Odd because without us there would be no Hornby.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

.... perhaps delivery estimates of the 'Q3 2020' sort are being used mendaciously to deter or otherwise manipulate the competition....

 

Being the cynical old grump that I am; in my opinion that is nail, head, huge great hammer.

  • Agree 1
  • Friendly/supportive 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

It smacks of contempt for your customers on an Apple Corp. level, and of dishonesty; perhaps delivery estimates of the 'Q3 2020' sort are being used mendaciously to deter or otherwise manipulate the competition, and raises our expectations only for them to crash and burn.

 

That's an entirely natural and understandable response. However, from decades of project management, I prefer a much more mundane explanation.

 

Quote

Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

 

See Hanlon's Razor.

 

Please never forget that suppliers are eternally optimistic about delivery dates and time required. And especially about the time required for the really boring parts of a new product delivery. Things like testing, design changes, (re-testing, yet more testing), certification, sign-off, etc, etc.

 

And then there's the Marketing folk. If they ever get sight or sound of a first delivery date (of the very first prototype for the first round of testing), then that is the delivery date. Never mind that the testing and changes cycle might go on .. and on .. and on ...

 

Before you know it, the Marketing folk have told the customers the first delivery date, not a realistic final date, then it's a merry-go-round of blame and explanation (like here in this topic).

 

Once the Production Project Management team has got a bit of scar tissue, they'll play safe by padding the project critical path with as much contingency as they can get away with (because Senior Management will always complain How Long???) and try beating them down to a quicker (but unrealistic) delivery date.

 

Life would be very dull if every product worked was delivered on time, to the budget, and worked as per the requirements. See Charles Babbage (the Patron Saint of IT projects)

 

Edited by KeithMacdonald
Hanlon's razor
  • Like 4
  • Agree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.