There is a trick to properly quote someone:
Quote label appearsIn this way, you’ll get those box quotes where the name of the user is attached, and that box can be expanded and it is linked to the original comment.
Hmm… don’t tempt me!
I prefer the current policy of talking to us even if there are mistakes made in the way. Please keep informing us and disregard people that get mad at you because of this. Most probably they belong to a group that never makes mistakes or wrong estimates…
So, …next week. Have you finished with the L14 emails though? We wait.
Your questions implies a difference concerning the term “Just in Time” w.r.t. size of company, which is definately not the case.
Purism was using this term and claiming to produce according to this “philosophy”. In the same article they talk about unknown throughput time. But a known AND stable throughput time is one of the basics to fulfill in order to switch to a JIT. While reading this (with some experience in this field) it is pretty obvious that this is a marketing driven article, simply not consistent and contadictory.
I can confirm that I have gotten the L14 email, and I ordered pretty late.
Since you are familiar with JIT, I imagine that you have read the bible of JIT, JIT Implementation Manual: The Complete Guide to Just-In-Time Manufacturing, by Hiroyuki Hirano wherein he writes:
the JIT Production System is a philosophy that seeks that point of truth where improvement activities and manufacturing activities become completely intertwined. But it is an empirical, hands-on
philosophy that devalues any ideas that are not grounded in the factory. Volume 2, p. 145
If we think of Just-In-Time as simply beating the delivery deadline, we understand very little of what JIT is all about. Volume 1, p 47
JIT improvements are quite different from the conventional industrial engineering (IE) type of factory improvements. The latter are usually based on analysis of current conditions. Improvement workers get out stopwatches and other instruments to measure current processes and then analyze them. Using the analysis results, they try to improve or fix the undesirable conditions. By contrast, JIT improvements are based on ideals instead of measurements. Their purpose is to bring the entire factory into conformance with the requirements of the JIT production system. While IE improvements use an inductive approach based on statistical data, JIT improvements address a single issue—Just-In-Time production—and use a deductive approach to improve the factory. Volume 1, pp 12-13
This would seem to be a different vision of JIT than you have.
All you said is right on point.
Nothing to be added, here.
I have been a-mostly-lurker here since buying my beloved librem-13 in ?2016 (can’t quite remember when). I have always been immensely grateful for the updates from the Purism team and the many knowledgeable forum regulars. Since ordering the librem-5 in 2017 I have really appreciated the work that has gone into explaining the process of developing it but I roll my eyes at the increasing volume of vociferous naysayers who seem to have nothing but criticism for the project. Purism are not the shepherds of our keyboard yammerings they are building our phone. Let’s not distract them from the task at hand.
I can’t believe some of the demanding comments here. You do remember that you backed a DEVELOPMENT project from a company that isn’t Samsung right? I’m ecstatic that I’m getting anything at all. Albeit I ordered only 2 years ago, I feel for those who have been waiting longer, but having been involved in my parents business many many years ago as a very small electronics manufacturer there are so many variables in developing a piece of hardware. I can’t even imagine where to start in deciding to build a phone from scratch.
My advice, don’t sweat the small stuff the ICBM’s are overhead. Waiting a bit longer for your phone isn’t going to kill you. I will continue to support these guys because of what they stand for and now more than ever it means the world to me.
Correction, some bought AFTER November '20 i bought a product that was advertised as finished and shipping. (on back order)
That’s why the questions aren’t “when will you make X feature” but “when will you complete X back order”
And asking for some honesty and transparency. - which as I said before should be due to both customers and funders.
the kind of honesty that people seem to want is:
Don’t make promises on the sales page (still linked) that shipping schedules will be known in a month, when (as confirmed by this thread they will not.)
that’s the current information linked on the order page, so anyone who purchased in (at least) the last three weeks (since this post) were lied to. - they were told/linked to information to inform their purchase on the sales page that wasn’t true, and Purism knew it wasn’t true - the VP has posted contradictory information here.
Another kind of honesty, when you tell people you will give updates this week and next week, do it, don’t break your promises.
The kinds of transparency that people want is updates (like the ones that were promised)
i’d suggest this as a template:
Hi,
Our manufacturing partner made A devices this week/month, they intend to manufacture B devices next week.
Our QA team assembled and tested C devices this week/month, We intend to work through D devices next week/month
Our shipping team pushed E devices out the door, there are F waiting to be shipped next week/month.
We have satisfied all orders received before G date.
We managed to make/test/ship (more/less) devices that we had anticipated in our last update because… (e.g. supply chain of CPUs dried up.) We are taking/doing/investigating (actions) to prevent this from happening again./ we have adjusted our estimates to account for these factors to help avoid any future disappointment to our backers/customers.
That’s 7 simple figures (that they should have immediately to hand) that could be shared on whatever basis they like daily/weekly/monthly…
It’s not like people are asking for a list of the serial numbers that have gone out! just some accurate and consistent information.
Neither financial backers who funded development, nor customers who have bought products in the shipping phase (evergreen.) should be treated like a mushroom.
It’s funny to me how you’re accusing Purism of lying because they had to issue a correction on when shipping emails are intended to go out, yet your template uses the word “intend” twice.
I say lying because their order pages (currently) states information that they know is out of date.
their order page (still) makes statements and promises that they know are not true and that they cannot keep…
What would you call it when a company tells new customers information on their sales pages that they know isn’t not true?
To continue to split the hair you’re splitting here. There’s a difference between Purism saying they “will” do something and not doing it and they “intend” to do something and not doing it.
After taking some time to think on this. It seems to me that you individually were given bad information internally which you then used to provide unknowingly bad information externally. Someone or more than one someone’s told you they would get something done “tomorrow” that they couldn’t get done in that timeframe.
Then when you got negative feedback from the people you (unknowingly) gave bad information to you pushed back against the people you gave bad information to.
The problem I have with this is that it puts the blame on the victims instead of the individuals that started the bad information chain.
With that said, I do appreciate that as management you publicly took the responsibility for the statement as opposed to passing the blame around.
I don’t have enough information to give solid advice, but I do think that this is not a great example of trying to over promise and under deliver, but rather an example of trying to cut things close and then missing.
As far as I can tell before this point we didn’t have a hard deadline or expectation. I think if you had just said on Thursday that the messages would go out next week then you could have given the person internally less stress about meeting a next day deadline and if they did manage to meet it and things did go out Friday that would be a bonus not a boon.
I don’t doubt that there have been plenty of examples where you have buffered the timeline and it’s cascaded out of control, but there are also examples like this one where Purism (not just you but other employees as well) tried to cut things close and missed when they could have buffered the timeline and not made things appear worse. This is not an attack but rather sharing of a perspective to allow you to see things as they appear from multiple viewpoints.
Please keep in mind, this is my perception based on the information I have available to me at this time and not guaranteed to be 100% accurate.
I guess most of us who are … lets say disappointed … are just unhappy not about the transparency which increased, but the answers provided. The answers are unsatisfactory, because most of those who ordered seemwd to have had the impression that librem 5 is going to be our next phone. Which is kind of how your well-polished website framed things at the time.
That said, the additional info we got from you made me realise how difficult the entire process is. So, now I am disappointed but I understand.
Keep up the work. No one else is producing a FSF certified phone. I just hope it comes in time to be relevant for the future of personal computing.
In the meantime, I got a FP3+ with /e/ to play arohnd until librem comes.
Good luck!!!
Thank you for further illustrating the absurdity of the lengths you people go in defining intent versus truth. Also, much like has happened with Purism posts, you missed the nature of my intent, the failure of relying on semantics to make an argument. We’ve killed two birds with this one stone.
Really though, if y’all are that unforgiving and rigid in your interpretation of language, you simply cannot be helped, and thus I have lost interest in trying.
I’d kindly ask that you read through my forum history to see that classifying me as “you people”, implying I’m against some group you identify with, is inaccurate at best, we have agreed on multiple topics on this forum.
This particular very brief post you made, in the context of the current thread, reads (to me a reader of the post) as you splitting hairs between whether danielr’s suggested template would also be seen as lying in danielr’s eyes or not.
My response was to point out that, yes, words have meanings. While I am not as rigid as you seem to imply, I do think that when you are presented with a more precise option to communicate your intent it is valid to consider using that more precise communication. If Purism were to change that language going forward I would be among the first to defend, from that point forward, people attacking the older posts for the language use as that would show evidence that the older posts were intended differently than a strict reading of the language would imply.
With that said, I am happy to further this train of thought in DM’s or a separate thread if you prefer it be a public facing converation, but I’d prefer not to take this thread further off topic.
You’re correct, I unfairly generalized, for which I apologize. It wasn’t meant to be as directed as I wrote it, but I didn’t make an attempt to communicate that.
In the military, one of the first things I was taught was “If it doesn’t apply to you, don’t pay it any mind,” in the context of someone griping at a group. That’s not an excuse, just some background for why the directed nature of my post didn’t ever occur to me. Certainly a minority’s mindset, though, and I’ll try to be better in the future. Thank you for being cool about being slighted.
(off-topic but I need to say it: with my mod’s hat on, I am delighted about how this exchange played out!)
tl;dr: Your communication, while still not perfect, has improved. Don’t spoil it by punishing the folks who funded your project for the mistakes made by you earlier in the project.
Long version:
Your initial communication strategy was based on representing the project as being way further along than it actually was, even if you had to be a bit “creative” with the truth. Evidently, this (and similar incidents, some of which are still ongoing, none of which have been properly addressed to my knowledge) did not inspire much trust.
Some backers might still be coming to terms with the notion that what they’ll receive is far from “almost ready”, as you kept insisting throughout most of the campaign. That’s upsetting. The reaction is understandable.
Cutting back on your communication won’t make the criticism go away. It’ll only fuel it, as it’s simply punishing people who’ve poured money into your project for a reaction that you’ve invited through your past handling of this project.
No, I much prefer your current approach. I rather hear an honest and realistic “I don’t know, and this is why”. That is what most of us have been expecting from the start, and it would be a shame to walk back on it now.