×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

need some complexity-related terms

need some complexity-related terms

need some complexity-related terms

(OP)
I have three categories of product.

Right now they are called "simple", "intermediate", "advanced".

The categorization has to do with the level of complexity of the product and the difficulty in making it.  In particular, it has to do with the skill set involved in producing it.

Couple of problems.

One is that we're thinking about changing what comes under the "simple" category, which means we need to rename it.  Otherwise people might see "simple" and assume the old category.  I think maybe "basic" is a good term here.

Another problem is that I (and others) just hate the way "intermediate" and "advanced" sound.  I don't know about others' reasons, but for me it reminds me of some kind of classification of gifted vs. non-gifted middle school kids.  I want different terms.

Another, bigger problem is that we're trying not to imply that any particular category is better than another.  Simple/intermediate/advanced does imply a value hierarchy.  We don't want people asking for "advanced" when all they need is "intermediate" just because they think it's better, because there's nothing wrong with intermediate and it is appropriate for most situations.

Essentially, the stuff in the "simple" category is very, very, basic--so basic it's hardly used.  (I think I'll propose "basic".)  

Stuff in the "intermediate" category is the normal stuff that is used in most cases.  But "normal" implies the other stuff is abnormal, and "ordinary" can be taken as derogatory.  Any other words that mean something like "ordinary"?  "Bread-and-butter" is how I describe these products, but that's rather too whimsical to use as a formal descriptor.  

Stuff in "advanced" is, to an extent, specialty product, but it includes some things that are relatively common, at least in some areas, so I'm not sure that "specialty" is a good way to go.  Though it certainly would help in regard to discouraging people from asking for it when they don't need it.  (We also have reasons not to use the word "complex", so that's out.)

Any thoughts on what to call these categories?

Hg

Eng-Tips policies:  FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies

RE: need some complexity-related terms

basic or economy
standard
premium

RE: need some complexity-related terms

Basic, Traditional, Unique/Distinctive??

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

RE: need some complexity-related terms

basic = standard
improved
premium = superior

fwiw, i'd avoid having "improved" and "enhanced" as labels of different levels ... which is better ?

maybe a 4th level "ultra"

RE: need some complexity-related terms

It seems to me that you are mixing two separate points of view about these products - that of customers or users, and that of the manufacturer. If the purpose of the category names is to create some image in the customer's mind, then focus only on that point of view. The name must only create the image that you wish to convey, and nothing else.

How about basic, standard, and custom. Or blue, silver, and gold.

RE: need some complexity-related terms

Kenat stole my thunder. I were to suggest Category 1, 2 and 3.

Rafiq Bulsara
http://www.srengineersct.com

RE: need some complexity-related terms

Basic
Typical
WTF


 

RE: need some complexity-related terms

(OP)
"Standard" does pretty much say what I mean.  I might try to use that.

"Special" would have worked in about 1970 for the more complex category, but these days it gets used sarcastically way too much.

The intent is to characterize the product in terms of the skill set needed to make it, for the purpose of certifying manufacturers in different categories to make those products.  However, there is a PR side to this in that you end up with customers/users asking for their product to be made only by "Level 3" because "that's the best" even though their product is only a Level 2 and so a Level 2 producer should be just fine.  Getting certified to Level 3 isn't worth it to a producer who only makes Level 2 products, because it calls for demonstrating and maintaining a skill set that they won't have any call to use.  It's just added expense all around, and locking capable plants out of some business for no good reason.

So things like 1/2/3 are right out.  If you do that, you might as well not even have levels 1 & 2 because no one will want them.  The trick, then, is to come up with descriptive categories that don't lead quite so obviously to only wanting the "top" category.  I like crossframe's suggestion, but I don't think I can get away with it...

Hg

Eng-Tips policies:  FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies

RE: need some complexity-related terms

Unleaded, Premium, High Test?
I was going to go for Class 1, 2, and 3 but KENAT posted first.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"It's the questions that drive us"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

RE: need some complexity-related terms

Regardless of the name, customer will eventually relate them inexpensive, moderate and expensive to good, better and best. So the key is in the Data Sheets and Brochures as to how and what you explain.

I do not normally relate classes or categories to quality or performance unless it is so explained. For example, Class I lightning protection system is no better or worse than Class II lightning protection system.  Nor is Class 1, Div. 2 more restrictive then Class 1, Div 1 classified areas.  

Rafiq Bulsara
http://www.srengineersct.com

RE: need some complexity-related terms

(OP)
You don't relate classes or categories to quality or performance because you understand them.  A lot of people don't.

There is going to be an educational effort to accompany this, but we'd rather not start already behind by having an obvious sequence.

If we jimmy the categories a little, we might actually be able to use a description of the products themselves rather than the skill level required to make them, and that would be best.  If we can't, then we are stuck with terms that are going to imply different levels of quality, but I'm doing my best to minimize that effect.

Basic/Standard/Specialty is what I'm leaning most toward if I can't make the purely descriptive titles happen.  It points people toward that middle category, and that's pretty much what we want.  For people who routinely use the "specialty" product, that description would seem a little silly, but I think I can live with that.

Hg

Eng-Tips policies:  FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies

RE: need some complexity-related terms

Basic
Standard
Comprehensive

RE: need some complexity-related terms

Entry-level
Standard
Highly-engineered
 

RE: need some complexity-related terms

I think Compositepro made a key point umpteen posts back.

To stop the customers getting the wrong end of the stick, try calling it something so geeky that they just glaze over for a few seconds - Something like "Complexity level A, B and C".

The people who need to know what it means will have to refer to the standard whatever you call it, and the people who should never have been looking at this measure in the first place will latch onto some other, more glittery, attribute.

A.

RE: need some complexity-related terms

(OP)
Nope, just the opposite.  They see A, B, C, they look up just enough to see which way the scale goes, and they go for the highest.  Now, if we had random designations (RB,PG,SS come to mind but I ain't sayin' why), that could work.  Hey, that could work...

Agreed, any sequence will have inherent values implied, but I'm hoping something like standard/specialized will point people away from unnecessary use of the "highest" category, whereas intermediate/advanced really begs for people to ignore "intermediate".

Hg

Eng-Tips policies:  FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies

RE: need some complexity-related terms

Sounds like levels 1 and 2 have been decided on as "basic" and "standard."  For number 3, how about using the following: "xxxxx-focused."  Where the xxxxx is some aspect of the product that people who don't need it would obviously have no need to order that item and anyone who does need it would easily distinguish it from the others.  

Or instead of "xxxxx-focused," try "xxxxx-targeted."   

Engineering is not the science behind building.  It is the science behind not building.   

RE: need some complexity-related terms

I don't know what the product is.  In software, the word "minimal" implies that you want the smallest install that performs the required function.  M$ use the terms:

Express
Standard
Enterprise

For their crappy compiler product.

- Steve

RE: need some complexity-related terms

ho-hum
Mmmmm
Wowie Zowie

(Don't try to read too much Zappa into this)

Seriously, how about the hotel industry

Standard (pretty basic)
Delux
Premium

RE: need some complexity-related terms

I think for your top level you could use the term

'Custom'

That gives the idea of needing specialized skills to create something and that you probably don't need them if you're going for the off the shelf product.  

So the three catagories end up as:

Basic
Standard
Custom

How does that sound?

-Kirby

Kirby Wilkerson

Remember, first define the problem, then solve it.

RE: need some complexity-related terms

I've always found the concept interesting of companies trying to discourage customers from buying certain products. The best way to take care of that problem is to charge a price that makes you want to sell it. If the customer doesn't want to pay it then the problem is solved. Capitalism at work.

RE: need some complexity-related terms

(OP)
It's not a problem of them requesting the fancy product.  It's a problem of them requiring a manufacturer to have the capability of making the fancy product, even though all they're going to order is the regular product.

I.e., not so much fancy product but fancy manufacturer.

Hg

Eng-Tips policies:  FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies

RE: need some complexity-related terms

You mean it's the difference between whether you'll need:

Bubba, his cousin and the ton of asphalt they have left over from another job,

Bob the builder,

Or Horatio's deluxe super technical contracting specialists,

to build it for you?

Posting guidelines FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm? (probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: FAQ1088-1484: In layman terms, what is "engineering"?

RE: need some complexity-related terms

(OP)
Exactly!

Bubba's great for patching your driveway.  Bob the Builder is just fine for most other cases.  No reason to shut him out of the market just because people find out that Horatio and his ilk exist, and no reason to make Bob upgrade all his stuff to Horatio's level (say, ability to work with stainless steel or fiberglass rebar, if we want to continue the pavement analogy), if you don't need him to build anything weird.  And it's not just about Bob.  If some of Bob's ilk leave the market, that reduces competition and raises the prices for the customer.  If the rest of Bob's ilk has to upgrade their facility to stay in the market, that price also gets passed on to the customer.

But the customer doesn't get that.  The customer just says, "I want the Cadillac!"  Even if the customer is ordering bikes.  (Sorry, analogy shift.)

And it's not enough to just say that the customer deserves what they get, because the other customer next door who only wants bikes built by Bob the Bikebuilder will still have to pay the price if Mr. Iwannacadillac affects the market.

Hg

p.s. Ya know, we keep using "Cadillac" to represent the ultimate in quality, but does anyone feel that way about actual Cadillacs any more?

Eng-Tips policies:  FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies

RE: need some complexity-related terms

Well, about as much as for Rolls Royce (cars), though actually they may have improved lately.

For the top group I think the difficulty is coming up with a single word that covers both custom/specialty and just plain complex.  So I suggest considering a phrase or something like I tried earlier.

Posting guidelines FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm? (probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: FAQ1088-1484: In layman terms, what is "engineering"?

RE: need some complexity-related terms

continuing the bilder references ...

then there'd be "Homes" for the "best" ... ?)

RE: need some complexity-related terms

would "kunckle dragging rock ape" be inappropriate, for the crudest manufacturing required ?  maybe S for simian (not simple) might disguise it acceptably ??

(even if it is applicable)

RE: need some complexity-related terms

How about:

Yawn
What?
Awesome!

 

RE: need some complexity-related terms

Now I am all confused. Perhaps,
The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
would work better if you only intend to sell the Good.tongue

Rafiq Bulsara
http://www.srengineersct.com

RE: need some complexity-related terms

Asok, Wally, and Dilbert.  Or, perhaps Wally, Dilbert & Alice.

RE: need some complexity-related terms

Standard
Professional
Premium

Maybe I'm pulling that from a CAD package?  Either way I think it accurately delineates without necessarily imparting value judgement.  Professional sounds great on its own, and the only thing higher is Premium which be defintion should cost more.  I guess you might have some worrier concerned that Standard work is un-Professional, but it also leaves you room at the bottom for Substandard!

RE: need some complexity-related terms

I think your only other option aside from where you are already leaning is to use three random letters or words.  Maybe even call out a spec.

Fabricator must be qualified to MFS 5495 for this prduct.
MFS 7389 for the following products, and to MFS 1827 for all other products.  Then just don't give out the specs.  MFS stands for My Fabrication Specification.  With this you could even increase the granularity of the control.  For example you could have each manuracturing process controlled by an MFS and each fabricator could be qualified to whichever specs they have the capabilities for.  Don't want to make it more complex then it needs to be though.

-Kirby

Kirby Wilkerson

Remember, first define the problem, then solve it.

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources