http://www.alfarnaterural.com Thu, 29 Jul 2010 23:06:58 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 en hourly 1 http://www.alfarnaterural.com/craftsmanship-its-cultural-and-managerial-implications.cfm http://www.alfarnaterural.com/craftsmanship-its-cultural-and-managerial-implications.cfm#comments Wed, 28 Jul 2010 19:10:46 +0000 admin http://www.crawbot.co.cc/?p=2404

“Craftsmanship = (Knowledge + Experience + Attitude) X Success”

- Bryce’s Law

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this essay is to review the state of craftsmanship in the 21st century, determine if it still has merit in today’s corporate culture, and if so, devise recommendations for perpetuating it.

Background

Although there are no definitive numbers to prove so, there is a general consensus that craftsmanship has been in decline in North America since the 1980’s. This era marked the beginning of stiff worldwide competition in just about every industrial sector, led predominantly by Japan and Germany. Since then, the European community has been unified and become a formidable foe, as has the rest of Asia. In response, American corporations began a policy of belt-tightening, downsizing, outsourcing, and use of new technology (e.g., robotics) all of which played an important part in the decline of labor unions during this period. This also led to the implementation of several corporate cost-cutting measures, including the reduction of employee education/training. In-house training and schools to develop employee skills were sharply curtailed, if not eliminated completely. Consequently, this led to a noticeable decline in human skills and a change in attitude by employees towards their work, thereby becoming more apathetic. It could be argued this also led to an increase in defects in workmanship which triggered the interest in Quality Assurance concepts and techniques beginning in the 1980’s.

Today, the prevailing attitude in the workplace appears to be less focused on what is to be produced, and more on the time needed to produce it. In other words, employees are more focused on their paycheck as opposed to their work product. Undoubtedly this has contributed to the current trend of micromanagement (a Theory X dictatorial style of management).

As such, an interesting dichotomy has emerged between management and workers:



Management – believes there is no employee loyalty, dedication or professionalism.

Employees – lack faith in management’s judgment and are suspicious of business ethics. Believes management is more concerned with the bottom-line as opposed to people.



Whereas micromanagement is the dominant style of management in today’s workplace, workers generally want more freedom and participation in the decision making process. But instead of worker empowerment, there is more of an inclination by management to dominate and more closely supervise workers. This growing rift between management and workers, along with changes in corporate socioeconomic conditions, has led to the decline in craftsmanship.

In the decades prior to the 1980’s, craftsmanship flourished primarily because workmen were well trained, they were empowered to perform their work accordingly, and the work produced was considered a reflection of the worker’s personal character. But if continuous employee improvement is discouraged (such as the reduction or elimination of employee training), self-initiative is prohibited (through micromanagement), and there is a general lack of trust between management and workers, then the decline of craftsmanship was inevitable.

The term “craftsmanship” is still bandied about, but more for marketing purposes than anything else. Most of the true craftsmen of this country have long since retired, but there are still a few practicing their craft either at home or in small-to-medium sized businesses where it is appreciated.

Why the interest in craftsmanship now? Due to heightened awareness by the media in such things as fashion, food, and architecture, there appears to be a growing trend in prestige consumer products. The fact that companies advertise their products are produced with “high craftsmanship” is indicative the consumer appreciates superior work products. There is also a growing realization that superior goods will last longer.

CRAFTSMANSHIP DEFINED

Before we go further, let’s examine what exactly we mean by the term “craftsmanship”:

“The practice and pursuit of excellence in building/delivering superior work products by workers.”

This implies craftsmanship is a universally applicable concept for any field of endeavor, be it producing a product or delivering a service. Basically, it is a commitment to excellence which is most definitely not the same as quality. Quality simply relates to the absence of errors or defects in the finished product or service. In other words, finished goods operate according to their specifications (customers get precisely what they ordered). Although quality is certainly an element of craftsmanship, the emphasis on “superior work products” means the worker wants to go beyond the status quo and is constantly looking for new and imaginative ways to produce superior results. This suggests the craftsman is personally involved with the work products and treats them as an extension of his/her life.

Craftsmanship can be found in either the overall work process or a section of it. For example, there are craftsmen who are intimate with all facets of building furniture, such as a table, a chair or desk, and can develop the product from start to finish. However, as products grow in complexity, it becomes difficult to find people suitably qualified to build them from the womb to the tomb. Consider military weapons alone, such as the complicated ships, tanks, and airplanes we now use, with thousands or millions of parts to assemble. Such complexity makes it virtually impossible for a single person to have the expertise to build the whole product. The same is true in the service sector where different types of expertise and capabilities may be required. In other words, craftsmen have a specific scope of work. The scope of work may relate to other types of craftsmen through a chain of work dependencies, e.g., Craftsmen A, B and C concentrate on separate subassemblies which are eventually joined into a single product.

Craftsmanship is also a human trait. Some might argue a computer or industrial robot can produce quality products and are, therefore, craftsmen. However, we must remember these devices are programmed by human beings in accordance with the rules of the craftsman. As such, they are nothing more than a tool of the craftsman.

ATTRIBUTES

Craftsmen can be characterized by a variety of adjectives, such as: patient, determined, curious, thorough, expert, methodical, focused, self-starter, and pays attention to detail. More specifically though, craftsmanship requires the use of:



TOOLS – In addition to the hand, the foot, and the eye, craftsmen must be knowledgeable in the use of other mechanical devices for his/her area of specialty.

THE MIND – Requiring specific knowledge, experience and judgment to implement the work product. This brings up an important point: education alone is not sufficient to be recognized as a craftsman; it also includes a record of proven success to demonstrate the worker knows how to apply the education.

In terms of education, there are two parts to consider: initial education, either learned through formal training (e.g., college and vocational school diplomas) or through on-the-job experience (”School of Hard Knocks”), and; continuous improvement, representing ongoing training/education through such things as certification, supplemental training, studying industry periodicals and books, or participation in industry trade groups. Although initial education is certainly important, continuous improvement is the earmark of a craftsman.

The craftsman is knowledgeable in all facets of the methodology for his/her line of work. For our purposes here, a methodology refers to “Who” is to perform “What,” “When,” “Where,” “Why,” and “How” (aka “5W+H”). As such, the craftsman must be fully cognizant of the work breakdown structure, the dependencies between steps, deliverables, along with the various techniques
and tools used throughout the methodology. From this, he/she can devise a reliable estimate of the costs needed to produce the work product, as well as schedule the time to deliver it.

A true craftsman is so knowledgeable about the work product and the methodology to produce it he/she can even advise other professionals in how to modify/improve them, such as architects and engineers (including industrial engineers).

THE SPIRIT – This represents the personal desire to not only see the job performed correctly, but better than others. This means the craftsman is personally committed to producing superior work products simply because he/she views his/her professional life as an extension of his/her personal life. As such, the craftsman must be empowered to make certain decisions on how to build/deliver the work product in order to achieve a sense of ownership. From this perspective, techniques such as micromanagement is not conducive for encouraging a program of craftsmanship.

A craftsman sweats over the smallest details in producing the work product and is well aware of the risks involved with skipping steps or doing something out of sequence. Such commitment to producing superior results suggests the craftsman possesses a higher work ethic than others, and in all likelihood possesses higher moral values due to his/her fastidious attention to “Right and Wrong.”



To summarize, the elements of craftsmanship can perhaps be best expressed using the following formula:

Craftsmanship = (Knowledge + Experience + Attitude) X Success

Knowledge – refers to both the person’s initial and ongoing education.

Experience – refers to the person’s application of his/her knowledge.

Attitude – refers to the person’s sense of professionalism and dedication to his/her craft.

Success – refers to both customer and company satisfaction of the person’s work.

WHO IS AFFECTED BY CRAFTSMANSHIP?

There are three interrelated parties involved with craftsmanship:

1. The Worker – charged with producing the work product.

2. The Company – which provides for a program of craftsmanship.

3. The Consumer – to purchase and express satisfaction with the work product.

Without any one of these elements, craftsmanship breaks down. For example:



It is not sufficient for a worker to simply want to be a craftsman; if the company implements an unsuitable corporate culture, craftsmanship will not be allowed.

It is not sufficient for the company to simply want to promote craftsmanship; if workers do not exhibit self-initiative to produce superior results, craftsmanship will not flourish. After all, “You cannot make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear.”

It is not sufficient for the consumer to simply say they want products built by craftsman; they must create the demand for such products and offer feedback in terms of their satisfaction with them.



IMPLEMENTING CRAFTSMANSHIP

To embrace craftsmanship, a company must devise a suitable corporate culture. This includes the following elements:



EMPOWERMENT OF THE WORKER to make certain decisions regarding development of the work product. This is often described as managing from the “bottom-up” as opposed to just “top-down” which is conducive to a Theory Y form of management philosophy. Under this scenario, the worker is given assignments by management and is held accountable for delivery. In turn, decisions regarding the development of the work product are delegated to the worker who is responsible for the preparation of an estimate and schedule to deliver the work product for approval by management. In other words, the worker is allowed more freedom to manage his/her own affairs and is not under the constant scrutiny of management. Further, the worker is allowed to offer feedback to management for improving products and work conditions. Last but not least, workers are recognized for outstanding achievement.

CREATION OF A MORE DISCIPLINED AND ORGANIZED WORK ENVIRONMENT promoting a more professional attitude amongst the workers. Ideally, the creation of an environment where workers can focus on their work with minimal distractions and take pleasure in coming to work (a sort of “home away from home”). Inevitably, this will include a redefinition of acceptable forms of dress and behavior, grooming, form of address, and office appearance.

This also includes a corporate position of zero tolerance in defects and inferior workmanship and the adoption of standard methodologies thereby defining best practices for building/delivering work products. Such standardization provides consistency in deliverables and allows for the inter-changeability of workers on different assignments. For example, suppose a worker becomes ill in the middle of an assignment and is unable to work on it further. Standard methodologies provides the means to allow another worker to complete the assignment in the same manner as the first worker. Also, standard methodologies provides an excellent training vehicle for young workers to learn and grow to become craftsmen.

PROMOTE A PROGRAM OF CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT to sharpen worker skills, stay abreast of industrial developments, and seek new ways of improving work products and the methodologies used to produce them. This will undoubtedly result in the reintroduction of in-house training and schools, as well as participation in certification programs and trade groups.

ESTABLISHMENT OF THREE CLASSES OF WORKERS to denote the level of expertise. Historically, this has been referred to as “Apprentices” (novices requiring training), “Intermediate” (educated and experienced, but not yet expert), and “Master” (expert craftsman). Such a designation of craftsmen is needed not to create barriers but to help establish a career path and mentoring program whereby the more experienced workers provide guidance to those less experienced or knowledgeable.

ESTABLISH LINK BETWEEN WORKERS-PRODUCTS-CUSTOMERS to establish a feedback loop to judge satisfaction with a specific product and to the exact worker(s) who produced it. It is impossible to recognize or reprimand workers without such a loop. For example, without it, customers may complain or compliment the company on the work product, yet management is at a loss as to who produced it. Ideally, a system should be set in place to provide for such analysis thereby providing a convenient means to monitor worker performance.



The premise behind affecting the corporate culture in this regards is to treat workers like professionals who should act as such in return.

BENEFITS & BYPRODUCTS

From a corporate viewpoint, is true craftsmanship the right path to follow? Does it really add value to the corporate bottom-line or not? First, it is a myth that work products produced by craftsmen costs more than those produced by less skilled workers. For products of the same class, it actually costs more to produce products using less skilled workers; after all, they do not have the same level of knowledge and experience that veteran craftsman have to produce it and, as such, craftsman can produce it faster with fewer mistakes. The cost for an experienced craftsman will undoubtedly be higher than novice workers, but savings will be realized simply by expedited development time and fewer mistakes (thereby causing the elimination of corrections or replacements). Further, superior work products have the added nuance of developing satisfied customers representing repetitive business as well as referrals.

Comparing the development cost of different classes of products is like comparing apples and oranges, it is simply not an accurate comparison. For example, the cost to build a luxury automobile will be substantially different than the cost to develop an economical subcompact. But if the product is of the same fundamental class, the craftsman will produce it faster and better than the novice (and at less cost).

So
me of the byproducts realized from embracing a corporate program of craftsmanship includes:



A work environment more conducive for building superior work products.

Employees develop a better sense of self-worth which promotes loyalty, dedication, and professionalism.

Standard methodologies promote consistent and measurable work products, the inter-changeability of workers on assignments (as opposed to developing dependencies on individual worker expertise), provides a career path for younger workers, and brings order out of chaos. Also, standard practices improves communications, thereby promoting cooperation and teamwork.



CONCLUSION

A program of true craftsmanship adds value primarily to three parties:



The customer – Satisfaction with the product means the consumer believes his money was well spent and takes pride in it, thereby encouraging others to purchase the same, thereby benefiting the company.

The worker – believes he/she is leading a worthy and meaningful life, thus promoting self-esteem and employee development.

The company – receives fewer customer complaints and returned products that are defective requiring replacement or rework. Workers who take pleasure in their work are less likely to switch jobs thereby causing production interruptions. Harmony in the workplace also promotes improved communications, teamwork and corporate loyalty. In other words, craftsmanship adds to the bottom-line of a business.



But make no mistake, the consumer is the impetus for craftsmanship. As long as customers accept inferior workmanship without complaint, companies will continue to produce shoddy work products in the least expensive means possible and workers will not be allowed to produce superior products.

The outcry for craftsmanship must begin with the customer.

If you would like to discuss this with me in more depth, please do not hesitate to send me an e-mail at timb001@phmainstreet.com

NOTES

1 – The author wants to acknowledge and thank Mario Guertin of Painting in Partnership for his generous input.

2 – In an Internet survey conducted in December 2007, random people were asked,

“In your opinion, do you believe Craftsmanship in general is in decline in North America?”

- YES – Craftsmanship is in decline., 25 votes, 81.00%

- NO – Craftsmanship is not in decline., 6 votes, 19.00%

REFERENCE

1 – Craftsmanship: the Meaning of Life by Tim Bryce

“PRIDE” Special Subjects Bulletin #6, January 10, 2005

]]> http://www.alfarnaterural.com/craftsmanship-its-cultural-and-managerial-implications.cfm/feed 0 http://www.alfarnaterural.com/methodologies-versus-techniques-and-tools.cfm http://www.alfarnaterural.com/methodologies-versus-techniques-and-tools.cfm#comments Wed, 30 Jun 2010 17:39:01 +0000 admin http://www.crawbot.co.cc/?p=2402

“Having a Project Management system without a methodology is like

attaching a speedometer to an orange crate; it measures nothing.”

- Bryce’s Law

INTRODUCTION

The term “methodology” is being bandied about by just about every

software development vendor and consultant imaginable. You would be

hard pressed to find a vendor who, in addition to their usual tool

offering, doesn’t promise a methodology to solve all of your development

problems. But like many things in this industry, the terminology is

getting sloppy and it is becoming apparent the true definition of

“methodology” is being bastardized.

IN THE BEGINNING

The term “methodology” became popular in information systems in the

early 1970’s, initially as a response to the question, “What is it?” Milt

Bryce first applied the term to systems development in 1971, to describe his

Information Systems Engineering process. Bryce referred to “methodology” as

a process which ends with the delivery of a product or a completely defined

result.

Later on, during the structured programming movement, a different

interpretation of the word emerged from software gurus such as Yourdon,

Gane/Sarson, Orr, Finklestein, Martin, Warnier/Orr, etc. Instead of

describing the overall process by which development occurs, the structured

programming people began to use the term “methodology” to describe their

techniques for designing software (e., functional decomposition, data

driven design, object oriented design, etc.). Consequently, software

development tools, which represent automated extensions of these techniques,

began to tout their products as “methodology” enablers.

This division in the use of the term “methodology” is a major source

of confusion to the industry. Not all “methodologies” are created equally.

There are fundamentally two interpretations: as a term referring to the

“process” by which work is performed, and; as a term referring to a

particular design technique. To truly understand “methodologies” you

must know the difference.

METHODOLOGIES AS “PROCESS MANAGEMENT”

We at MBA define a methodology as, “a process which ends with the delivery

of a product or a completely defined result.” Under this perspective,

a methodology defines the “5-W’s”; it defines WHO, is to perform WHAT work,

WHEN, WHERE, and WHY. If this sounds like an engineering/manufacturing

process, it is. MBA contends information resources can be designed and

developed in the same manner as any other product. Here, a methodology

defines the division of labor and synchronization of work effort. With

this approach, the development effort is divided into smaller more

manageable pieces just as in an assembly line process. Construction

projects represent another example (e,g., shipbuilding, office/home

construction, etc.), where the work is carefully divided into stages with

precedent relationships.

METHODOLOGY AS A DESIGN TECHNIQUE

As opposed to the “5-W’s” interpretation by MBA, a methodology

supported by the software design people defines HOW a particular task

is to be performed. For example, the forte of design techniques such

as “object oriented programming,” “structured programming,” or “information

engineering” is on HOW to accomplish specific activities of work. From

this context, the term “methodology” is a misnomer which should be

replaced by the term “technique,” a more apt description.

Techniques may differ from company to company, and there is not always

a single way to perform a task. For example, in the automotive industry,

fenders have always been a part of the car, but they have not always been

attached the same way. Originally, fenders were bolted to the body of the

car. Years later, an automotive worker welded the fender to the car. Today,

welding robotics perform the task. The task, attaching the fender to the car,

hasn’t changed, but the techniques to do it have. Improved techniques can

mean realizing the same result with savings in time and money.

The same is true in the information systems world. Whereas there are

generic stages of work for designing and developing a system, there are a

multitude of techniques for performing the work. For example, there are

significant differences between “structured programming” and “object

oriented programming,” yet the result is fundamentally the same, the

development of an executable program. The difference is the chosen approach

of implementation (there are pros and cons for both techniques). Whereas

“Software Engineering” represents a phase of work in a development project,

“structured programming” and “object oriented programming” represent

techniques that can be used to perform the phase.

Does this mean there are overlaps or conflicts in the use of the

different types of “methodologies”? Not quite. But to appreciate the

difference, one must understand the concept of “Productivity” (as

we have discussed in other “PRIDE” Special Subject Bulletins).

PRODUCTIVITY = EFFECTIVENESS X EFFICIENCY

Productivity is not simply a matter of how fast a task can be performed,

it’s a matter of performing the right task at the right time. This is what

underlies the concept of productivity. Whereas “efficiency” concentrates

on speed of delivery, “effectiveness” is concerned with doing the right

thing at the right time; the two are not synonymous. For example, performing

a weld using robotics may be a far more efficient means than performing the

task manually, but it is useless if you are welding the wrong thing. There

is nothing more unproductive than to build something efficiently that should

never have been built in the first place. Zero percent effectiveness

times 1000% efficiency equals zero productivity.

A true methodology addresses the effectiveness side of the equation

(Who, What, When, Where, Why), and a technique addresses the efficiency

side (How to). Whereas a methodology defines the work environment, the

technique defines how the work is to be performed. The two are obviously

complementary and one does not eliminate the need for the other. But

comparing one with another is like comparing apples with oranges, they are

simply not the same.

FACTORY CONCEPT

Within an engineering/manufacturing facility you will typically find:



An Assembly Line where products are developed in stages.



Production Control monitoring the assembly line for delays or

accelerations in production.



Techniques for performing work.



Tools providing mechanical leverage.



These elements can be found in any development environment, including

the IT world. What is interesting is the relationship between the elements:

ASSEMBLY LINE – at the heart of the factory is the Assembly Line process

where products are developed in stages by workers with different skills

for the different stages of work. In IT terminology, this is the

“methodology.”

PRODUCTION CONTROL monitors the assembly line using dials and gauges.

Production Control is not an entity by itself; it is totally dependent on

the existence of the Assembly Line in order to measure performance.

In IT terminology, this is Project Management. However, this brings up

an important point; without a de
fined methodology, Project Management is

an exercise in futility. It measures nothing. Only if a defined mode

of operation exists can dials and gauges be effectively applied.

TECHNIQUES, as mentioned, represent ways for performing specific tasks

(”how to”). A variety of techniques may be used on the Assembly Line.

Obviously, it would be counter-productive to use a technique at the wrong

time on the Assembly Line. This means the effective use of techniques

is dependent upon a defined Assembly Line.

TOOLS implement techniques. Tools provide mechanical leverage for performing

a specific task. In this sense, it is an extension of a technique, and like

the technique, tools must be deployed at the proper locations along the

Assembly Line. This is the reason why many software engineering tools are failing;

not because they are bad tools, but simply because companies have not defined

their Assembly Lines (methodologies) and haven’t specified when the techniques

and tools are to be used.

What this highlights is that a methodology is the focal point within a

development environment. Without a defined methodology, Project Management

will be ineffective, and design techniques and software development tools

will be misapplied. Productivity will be low.

METHODOLOGY CRITERIA

Since a methodology is critical to the success or failure of a

development environment, it is important to be able to differentiate

between a methodology, technique and tool. The generic properties of

a methodology include:

1. DEFINES THE STAGES OF WORK (a work breakdown structure normally

consisting of phases, activities and tasks). The stages of work

defines the “5-W’s” (Who, What, When, Where, Why). The synchronization

of work is needed to define direction and is provided by the precedent

relationships between the various steps in the methodology. Defined

duties and responsibilities provides insight for performing the work

and methodology standardization improves communications between workers.

2. MEASURABLE – The stages of work can be evaluated in terms of how long

it takes to perform them and how much they cost to perform. Further,

criteria is provided to substantiate completion of deliverables

thereby assuring the development of a quality product.

3. TECHNIQUE AND TOOL INDEPENDENT – various techniques and tools can be

deployed as required.

4. PROJECT MANAGEMENT INDEPENDENT – can work with or without a Project

Management system. For example, an Assembly Line can still function

without Production Control, but not vice versa.

If the methodology you are evaluating does not match this simple

criteria, it is not a methodology and probably some form of technique.

TYPES OF METHODOLOGIES

Of the “process management” methodologies, there are fundamentally

three types:

LINEAR “WATERFALL” METHODOLOGY (sometimes referred to as “Life Cycle”) -

this is perhaps the best known of the methodologies. Various interpretations

of this approach have been published for several years, both commercially and

public domain. Fundamentally, it a sequential process where the design of an

application moves from the general to the specific; for example:

FEASIBILITY STUDY DESIGN PROGRAMMING TESTING REVIEW

The problem with this approach has been its orientation towards computer

software and not on total systems. But the biggest pitfall has been its

sequential orientation which tends to prohibit parallel development.

SPIRAL DEVELOPMENT – this approach is based on the premise the development

process is evolutionary in nature (which, in fact, it is). The concept is

to initially design a program, then add additional phases of work to

constantly revise the program to enhance its features. From a Project

Management perspective, the problem with this approach is that the project

never ends.

PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT – as proposed by MBA, this approach uses elements of

the other two methodologies, with the added nuance of using a product

orientation as the basis for the development process. Under this approach,

a system is viewed as a product. Consequently, it can be designed in the same

manner as any other product. For example, when a product is being designed

(such as an automobile), the overall assemblies are first designed (such as

the body, chassis, engine, etc.). After this phase, each assembly is designed

by teams of engineers who refine the design of each assembly into sub-assemblies

and parts. All of this occurs as parallel phases. MBA advocates the same

approach for systems development. An initial phase is used to design

the architecture of the system, followed by succeeding parallel phases to

refine the design. This is the best approach for parallel development.

INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING

In an engineering/manufacturing environment, the responsibility for

defining the work environment is normally delegated to an “Industrial

Engineer.” It is the Industrial Engineer’s responsibility to define the

Assembly Line, the types of people and skill sets required to perform the

work, and the deployment of techniques and tools to be used on the

Assembly Lines. Industrial Engineering is a recognized profession in

the engineering/manufacturing world. A comparable position is required

in the information systems world.

Unfortunately, most development methodologies purchased today are

evaluated by the wrong people. Quite often, the evaluation of a methodology

is delegated to programmers or technicians who are more enamored with the

latest software design technique or tool than in defining a managed development

environment. This is like Henry Ford allowing the UAW to invent the concept

of the Assembly Line. They simply have the wrong perspective. Someone who

specializes in installing headlights doesn’t necessarily have the expertise to

develop Assembly Lines. True, their input can be helpful when evaluating a

technique or a tool, but not for an overall development environment. This is

one area where American businesses have abdicated complete control.

CONCLUSION

There are essentially two interpretations for the term “methodology” in

the IT industry. One interpretation is as a disciplined process for developing

information resources, from inception to conclusion. Another is as a technique

for performing a specific task of work. These are subtle but significant

differences, particularly if a company is analyzing their development

environment. As companies have learned, it is not simply a matter of

purchasing the latest software engineering tool to overcome their productivity

problems. Studies show such tools are failing to have an effect in this area,

primarily because they are being misapplied by the users. People looking for

programming tools to bring order out of chaos are going to be sorely

disappointed. This is not their forte. Rather, they represent an efficient

approach for implementing design techniques. The intent of a true methodology

is to define the work environment, thereby providing the ability to effectively

deploy tools and techniques. To implement a methodology, a development

organization needs to reorient themselves into an “Information Factory”

environment, where systems and software (products) are developed in the

same manner as any other engineering/manufactu
ring facility.

]]> http://www.alfarnaterural.com/methodologies-versus-techniques-and-tools.cfm/feed 0 http://www.alfarnaterural.com/a-bad-apple-logic-board-can-be-very-inexpensive-to-repair.cfm http://www.alfarnaterural.com/a-bad-apple-logic-board-can-be-very-inexpensive-to-repair.cfm#comments Wed, 17 Mar 2010 04:01:33 +0000 admin http://www.crawbot.co.cc/?p=2406

 The cost savings of having your apple logic board repaired instead of swapped out completely add up to over $800 dollars on some apple computer models. Quotes in excess of $1000 dollars have been issued for the replacement logic board and labor! Finding the right facility to repair an apple logic board instead of replacement can make a big difference.

 That is the tricky part. Finding an apple repair center that can repair the board itself can take months to find then MONTHS to get the repair finished. Proper logic board repaira do take a longer time to complete properly due to Q/A testing of the actual apple computer repair. A week or 7 business days is a reasonable expectation for a normal turn around time on a mail in apple laptop repair.

 I don’t think even apple them self could beat 7 days on a logic board swap anyway. So that is reasonable for a smaller company to meet or even sometimes beat. I believe it is worth a week of down time to save $800 dollars and I bet you do also!

 The apple logic board repair company should have at least a 90 day warranty. Sadly, a lot of companies that install refurbished boards can’t even offer a warranty on the board itself.That is another reason to have your current logic board repaired properly instead of replaced. You know the history behind your computer. You could end up with some 17 year old kids logic board who spilled coke on it and played video games 24-7! We all understand how much stress and heat video games cause to logic boards!

  The price for a correct apple logic board repair should vary based on model and speed of the apple laptop or desk top to be repaired. At most it should not exceed $250 dollars and include return insured shipping and a 90 day warranty. At that price it is much less expensive than buying a whole new laptop or apple desktop. You have the security of knowing the past history of your complete computer.

 Make sure the apple repair center has the ability to replace actual components on the board itself. The machinery to do this cost hundreds of thousands because it must be done with inhuman precision. Some apple logic board components require proper alignment of over 160 TINY pins. Impossible for a human to remove or install these types of components without error or mechanical assistance!

 The reward of saving $600 or $800 dollars on a repair is sweet. Getting your computer fixed for $250 after you spilled coke in it is even better! Yes, any honest board level repair facility should be able to fix most liquid spills. There are very few liquid spills that cannot be fixed by a proper application of logic board repair techniques!

 Hopefully you are now inspired to save that rotten apple computer, you know the one you love so much until it had come down with a bad logic board? With the cost of living going up consider repairing an older computer you may have lying around and give it to one of your children to save money instead of buying new. Knowing the computers history is a huge plus. 

 When running a business from your computer, you really need a back up. That is another great reason to get that broken mac repaired instead of tossing it and buying a new one. Most likely if you have it repaired you can Easily resell it for a lot more working than you paid to repair the logic board. All of there things should be considered when you are saving so much money on the apple computer repair itself!

 

 

]]> http://www.alfarnaterural.com/a-bad-apple-logic-board-can-be-very-inexpensive-to-repair.cfm/feed 0