Product failure is a good thing?

Log Out | Topics | Search Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

Author Message David G. Axt, CCS, CSI ,SCIP Senior Member Username: david_axt Post Number: 1463 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Thursday, February 25, 2016 - 03:42 pm:    A month or so back, I was at a meeting and was talking with a product rep. He was telling me about a project (not mine) where the contractor incorrectly installed his product. The contractor would have to remove the product, buy more product and reinstall it correctly. He was happy because it meant that he would get an additional commission check....and it was a very large project. I was so appalled by what he said that I had no reply. I have since removed his products from my specifications and will avoid ever speaking with him. David G. Axt, CCS, CSI, SCIP Specifications Consultant Axt Consulting LLC Lynn Javoroski FCSI CCS LEEDŽ AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 2075 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Thursday, February 25, 2016 - 04:09 pm:    Yeah, just a sales person, not a trusted adviser. That *is* appalling. Ellis C. Whitby, PE, CSI, AIA, LEEDŽ AP Senior Member Username: ecwhitby Post Number: 265 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Thursday, February 25, 2016 - 04:10 pm:    Isn't this really "installation failure" rather than "product failure"? Regarding the product representative's feelings: if the contractor had received correct advice on how to install the product, then ignored the advice, I could find the rep's feelings understandable. Otherwise, not so much. James Sandoz, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: jsandoz Post Number: 191 Registered: 06-2005 Posted on Friday, February 26, 2016 - 10:59 am:    I'm with David on this and here's why: If the product rep had been doing his job correctly the installer would have known from the first the correct procedure to follow (unless, as Mr. Whitby suggests, the installer ignored the advice). In any case the product rep should not gloat about this failure. At the least it demonstrates a lack of propriety and class. Worse, it brings into question just what is it about the product that makes it so difficult to install. Scott Piper Senior Member Username: spiper Post Number: 29 Registered: 08-2014 Posted on Monday, February 29, 2016 - 10:15 am:    I agree with David for the most part but just to play devils advocate I would argue that a good product is a good product even if it has bad representation. If there are comparable products available to my clients then I might take the same action but I would worry that I was throwing out the baby with the bath water. Of course every product, application, situation, etc. is different so I may be off base in this instance. Michael Chusid, RA FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: michael_chusid Post Number: 123 Registered: 10-2003 Posted on Monday, February 29, 2016 - 02:00 pm:    David may know circumstances that we do not regarding the specific situation. But in general, I urge compassion for reps. I can imagine the rep is a victim of circumstances beyond his/her control without access to the jobsite -- as might have happened if the contractor deliberately thinned a mixture. The rep may have spent hundreds of hours trying to fix a bad situation, lost future business from an angry client, and suffered damage to the brand's image. While outwardly expressing happiness about commissions, the rep may be licking his/her wounds on the inside. Michael Chusid, RA FCSI CCS www.chusid.com www.buildingproduct.guru John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 1664 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Monday, February 29, 2016 - 03:29 pm:    Remember, too, that reps have specific responsibilities depending upon what the agreement is with the manufacturer. This may limit their contribution during construction. For example: some reps only contact designers, not contractors; contractors may only be serviced through distributors; reps may not have time or budget to discuss many projects with contractors; or the project may not have been in their territory (often frustrating for designers with projects not near their office). For more technical products, I sometimes have specified various amounts of technical support from manufacturers. At least that way it is (supposedly) budgeted for. Michael Chusid, RA FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: michael_chusid Post Number: 124 Registered: 10-2003 Posted on Monday, February 29, 2016 - 07:08 pm:    John - I am intrigued by your statement, "For more technical products, I sometimes have specified various amounts of technical support from manufacturers." I have done this by requiring mfr rep to attend pre-instruction conferences, provide onsite training, etc. But it sounds almost as if you are specifying an allowance or time budget. If so, please share some examples of how you did this and the results you got. Michael Chusid, RA FCSI CCS www.chusid.com www.buildingproduct.guru John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 1665 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Tuesday, March 01, 2016 - 03:58 pm:    Michael, Not hourly. I've actually I've specified it pretty much the way you have, perhaps adding a couple site visits at particular times, generally near the start of the installation. I never had a problem getting what was specified. I also would ask for a written report of the visit. I cannot say for sure whether it headed off particular problems, though. David J. Wyatt, CDT Senior Member Username: david_j_wyatt_cdt Post Number: 143 Registered: 03-2011 Posted on Tuesday, May 31, 2016 - 02:22 pm:    John, "I cannot say for sure whether it headed off particular problems, though." Your statement captures a big perceptual problem we have: Prevention usually goes unnoticed, because we don't enumerate problems that were prevented. They don't get the attention that heroic rescue efforts get following failures. So, we never know the ultimate value of quality assurance. John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 1675 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Tuesday, May 31, 2016 - 04:37 pm:    The problem is metrics. To determine whether or not this prevents problems requires a lot of record keeping for multiple projects, and a statistical analysis. However, for the projects where I required manufacturer involvement, the cost was proportionately very low. I knew the manufacturer's technical person viewed the work and accepted it, so there was this assurance. Doing things to reduce the risk of a bad thing happening is hard to measure, but that doesn't mean the effect is not there, nor does it mean that the cost is not worth it. Putting in a traffic light at a dangerous intersection would likewise prevent traffic accidents, but we don't need to test against the intersection with no light as a control to decide it's worth doing.