Conference 7.286::digital

    Hi Lauren
    Ah, SPOC, Specs on computer. I can't possibly tell you the number of 
    headaches we have had with SPOC here in HLO. Up until 3 years ago we
    used to maintain our own component specifications in Hudson. The reason
    being was that corporate document control would take months to turn
    around ECO's, part number assignments, drawings etc. As you know the
    work we do Hudson is very dynamic. Six month turnarounds to get back
    our documentation was not meeting our business needs. Our product cycles
    are too short. 
    
        Then document control presented SPOC to us. The best thing since
    sliced bread. All our specs on computer, 2 weeks turnaround, NOT! Since
    June of 91 not 1 of our specifications have made it into SPOC. Our text
    portion of the specifications are on computer but they have not been
    able to download any graphics since then. They sight incompatibility
    with Unigraphics Rev 8, which is the corporate CAD system, as the
    reason. However even before this revision change it would still take
    weeks before the complete spec was downloaded.
     
        SPOC should be a great tool for us to use. Want to know a
    specification, it's revision level, any ECO in process, just pull it up
    on the screen. All the text and graphics at your desk. Paperless and
    fast info. Here in Hudson most of the MFG takes place in ultra clean
    rooms. Bad place for dirty drawings. We had hoped to be able to provide
    these folks with build and component info right at they're terminals.
     
    Sorry for the flame. This is a real hot button here in Hudson. We have
    been telling our managment what a great tool this will be. We have been
    sold a bill of goods. When we ask for a date when this problem will
    be resolved, they don't know. Can't give us a date. This isn't rocket
    science.
     
       So, in a nutshell. SPOC has not, is not, and doesn't appear to be
    going to, meet the business needs hear in Hudson.
    
    Just my opinion
    Joel                                            

    The thing I like best about SPOC is its results.  When SPOC came into
    being 15 or so years ago, every new product was using a new set of part
    numbers - some part numbers were being assigned to the same vendor
    part.  No one had good information about the parts that had already
    been assigned a Digital number.  Part proliferation was rampant and,
    today, we would have about 120,000 active parts - all being stocked
    in various stockrooms throughout the world.
    
    With SPOC, information became globally available on vendor parts
    that had already been assigned a Digital part number.  This meant
    new design teams could use existing parts without going through
    the writing of Specs, qualifications and evaluations normally done.
    This also meant that purchasing could negotiaite for larger buys
    of individual parts.
    
    The last time I looked we had about 6,000 active parts (rather than the
    possible 120,000 parts).  About four years ago I did a calculation
    on what this meant to Digital, and it came to an annual increase to our
    bottom line of about $500,000 per year.
    
    ---dick
    (drop a note to John Peachey or Paul Nix.  They know a good
    deal about the background of this system.)
    

    SPOC is real handy for qual information and quick part lookups.
    Well, it WOULD be handy, if there were several SPOC servers. SOmetimes
    I think that much of DEC back east believes that there is nothing
    west of the mississippi! SPOC access is SLOW from out here in NM.
    
    The user interface needs work...Its never quite clear when to hit
    a <cr> and when not to.
    
    The data is incomplete. In the ARCHIVE area, many of the fields are
    left blank by the component engineers (?), minimizing its usefulness.
    
    The graphics area needs some updating... and howcum I cant SEND the
    graphics files with a gold (f)?
    
    Even with all the above, it's a system I need to use almost every day.
    
    	/john
    PS: It's also EXPENSIVE!

  I used SPOC for several years while in the corporate IC qual/test group,
located since 1989 at FXO. I agree with .2 that having SPOC has greatly re-
duced the proliferation of parts, saving hundreds of thousands of dollars in
qualifying, writing specs for, developing test programs for, and stocking 
parts where an suitable qualified IC already exists.
  I also agree with the replies that SPOC needs improvements. It took months
for me to learn how to use the U.I.; I often got fouled up by hitting <cr>
when I was not supposed to, or waiting for a response while the system was
waiting for me to hit <cr>.
  The (lack of) graphics capability is, IMO, SPOC's #1 deficiency. Instead of
spending years and man-hours trying to make the graphics work (which is very
difficult due to the various incompatible graphics standards used within DEC),
I think it would have made more sense to use "poor man's graphics" wherever
possible (that is, using standard characters to represent graphics) and con-
tinuing to use hard copies and microfiche for the graphics portions of specs
that can't be expressed in "poor man's graphics". In many cases, all of the
vital information can be expressed in text or "poor man's graphics" by using
a little ingenuity. It may not be a showy as true graphics, but it would sure
save the user a lot of headaches.