3 ms·
Apocryphal?
by rational_indian 6y ago
Apocryphal?
- 101008 6y agoWhere does it say it is real?
- rational_indian 6y agoWhere does it say it's not?
- Finnucane 6y agoIt’s certainly hard to imagine any real system being designed to stop the production line instead of just diverting the empties into a bin.
- Nextgrid 6y agoI think stopping the line would be the correct thing to do as having an empty box is a thing that should never happen (of course, the upstream issue should be fixed first) and if it does happen chances are something is very wrong and it's better to be safe than sorry.
- setr 6y agoin the story, they've accepted the empty box as a fact of life -- fixing the upstream problem was not cost-viable. So this is a scenario where empty boxes are known & expected, but they stop the line anyways
- vidanay 6y agoStopping the production line is almost never the first choice. Continuous production takes priority. There are second-order metrics that can be applied on top of the individual rejects (N in a row, N out of M rate, etc) and THOSE metrics can be used to determine if production should be shut down. Source: Have worked in industrial process control (specifically automated QA inspection equipment) for 20 years.
- Finnucane 6y agoBut there will always be some empty boxes no matter how tightly you calibrate the line. You're never going to have perfect tolerances in a mass production line like that. In fact, in this case, the scale is still a better solution than the blower, because not only do you need to not send out empties, but also incorrectly filled tubes.
- srtjstjsj 6y agoAnd unsurprisingly, in real companies where this matters, they use scales. The urban legend, like many, proves the opposite of the truly good lesson.
- adrianmonk 6y agoI assume it's meant as a parable.