Thread: Tesla Model 3
View Single Post
Old 07-19-2018, 03:11 PM   #470 (permalink)
thingstodo
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Saskatoon, canada
Posts: 1,412

ChargE (not yet running) - '92 Mazda MX6 LX
90 day: 33.89 mpg (US)

Ford Prefect - '18 Ford F150 XLT XTR
Thanks: 720
Thanked 511 Times in 408 Posts
Thanks for the extra information!

Quote:
Originally Posted by JSH View Post
I agree planning for automation from the beginning is much more efficient than automating a formerly manual process. The problem is the automation doesn't work. So either Musk tried to automate things that aren't a good fit for automation, his automation people didn't know what they were doing or Musk didn't give them enough time to work out the bugs before starting production. My bet is on the first and last options.
Absent more information - you could be correct.

Quote:
Yup, we use SCRUM, Agile, and Lean manufacturing (and lots of other buzz word methods of lean manufacturing that happen to be in vogue)
Hmm. Everyone that I know that has ACTUALLY implemented SCRUM and Lean, using Agile methods, knows that it is not just a list of buzz-words. And that AGILE is not a noun. I'm not saying that you are not using parts of SCRUM and Lean, or using Agile methods ... but perhaps you are not doing it well? At least well enough to get all of the advantages ...

BTW - my day job does *NOT* implement any of this. You are far ahead of the curve simply acknowledging that better methods MAY exist. And implementing this stuff is HARD and takes TIME and EFFORT. Even thinking about doing a SCRUM implementation at work gives me a head-ache.

Quote:
If the Model 3 launch was successful you (and Musk) would be right.
Agreed .. sort of. Portions of the system can be well done, well designed, and perform. But the whole system needs to work at the same time, and together, for a successful plant. So YES, it was not successful. I don't know how many systems failed. But at LEAST one failed in spectacular fashion. Likely more than one, or it would have been fairly quick to fix.

Quote:
For example, Musk skipped the soft-tooling stage. This involves making cheap, lower grade set of tooling to make sample parts. If something doesn't turn out right you modify the tooling and test again. When everything works you cut the purchase order for production hardened tools and discard the soft tools. That way when the line starts up all the parts fit together.

Musk went straight from rapid prototypes parts based on CAD to production parts from hard tool. He did this because he said the soft-tool stage in the Model S production wasn't useful. It wasn't useful because he didn't wait until all the tweaks were made before ordering the production tooling. Musk's take-away from this was not to follow the industry standard process and take the time to do the soft-tool stage correctly for the Model 3. Instead he just skipped the step and we have the fiasco
That is an EXCELLENT example. I appreciate you taking the time to write it out. But it helps me to understand why you think he skipped critical steps ... which is would appear that he DID. And it shows that Elon, and by inference several of his team, did not understand how reality encroaches on your carefully laid plans.

Quote:
It seems very odd for a new company to skip basic steps when they don't know what they are doing. However, Musk doesn't know what he doesn't know and isn't willing to listen to people that do know.
It is not odd for a new company to challenge the status quo, and change things up to make things that should be more efficient. It is odd, in my view, for them to go 'all in' on a change like this when they released ... 8 was it? .. difference release candidates for the Model S as they progressed from garage hack to polished design.
__________________
In THEORY there is no difference between Theory and Practice
In PRACTICE there IS!
  Reply With Quote