Conid Delivery Time

[Uncial]

Nakaya is pretty slow to fulfill orders. I waited over a year for one, but I think it would be foolish to say they were a bad business. Whatever you do, don't ever start collecting Rolex's. You'll implode.

[james3paris]

I'm self employed. i deal with manufacturing, fabrication, shipping, and U.S. Customs issues on a daily basis. Those people who call me 'ignorant' and that I "have it out for Conid" don't know anything about me - and obviously nothing about Conid or other small manufacturing companies.

 

What I've read here says that Conid has had this problem for a VERY long time - and they haven't been interested in really fixing it. Either that, or they've had someone who hasn't been doing their job, and they're playing "let's cover up for that".

 

When a customer calls, having pre-paid for a fabrication, and says "Hey, I want an updated delivery date.", they get one. If you don't have the information immediately, you say "I'll have to talk to John, and find out exactly where this job stands."

 

You don't ignore emails, refuse to answer telephones AND have a nine week late delivery. That's horrible business. They could have asked one of their kids or wives to send boilerplate responses, if they couldn't afford to hire a receptionist. My guess is that they never actually assigned someone to answer emails, and that they all carry cellular phones, so ignored their main business line. A classic SEP (Someone Else's Problem)

 

Real example. I was at a sign company last week. They had their employees working on large project, but they had stopped for the day and were cleaning up. A known customer stopped in who needed a sign _fast_. As it was a quick job, the owner just directed one of the employees to cut out the letters, and another to cut out the sign shape right there. Fifteen minutes later, she was out the door - very grateful - and the employees headed out right afterwards. If this was, for example, Conid, they'd have had the door locked and people would have pretended to not be there.

 

In this particular bit of weasel wording, here's what Conid said.

 

• Maintain the quality and care for the open orders without any single compromise
• Strengthen our customer service by expanding our team to allow the necessary dedication for a constant and swift follow up
• Production of parts with perfected balance between batch size and efficiency to ensure stock and eliminate problematic shortages
• Finetune workflows and the further automation of underlying processes to gain time

 

"Maintain the quality and care for the open orders.." - "Don't worry, we'll get there, and your pens will be good." Fine.

 

"Strengthen our customer service by expanding our team" - their _customer service_. Key word there. Manufacturing is NOT customer service. They said they would add people to do what they should have done months ago. (or longer, if what I've read here is accurate). Answering emails and the phone. They've said nothing about adding anything to manufacturing.

 

"Production of parts"... Very much weasel worded, but implies that part of their problem is that they've not been keeping enough parts on-hand to satisfy demand. This could be cash flow, it could be like some businesses around me, where someone _not on site_ decided that keeping X supplies on hand is plenty, even if they regularly run out halfway to the next delivery. I'm sure everyone has seen this if they frequent convenience stores to get a fountain drink - it's the most common 'We've run out and our delivery isn't until Tuesday' that I run across. (and a restaurants). It's amazing how the owners of those businesses refuse to restock mid-week. It's hard to say which could be the issue here. As they have 253 pens to build right now, and are _very_ far behind, they either manufacture every part on-site, or do very small batch orders, which -their- suppliers take their time making.

 

"Finetune workflows and the further automation of underlying processes". This is "We don't want to hire people to get the job done, so we're trying to figure out how to shuffle people around and if we can offload work elsewhere" weasel speak. There's nothing magical about building a fountain pen - Pen_Ingeneer and his web site list pretty much everything. So there's no reason they couldn't say "We're going to add another person to address our bottleneck in linishing." - other than they _haven't figured out what to do yet_.

 

As for Conid as a brand? I've never used one of their pens. Everything I've read here says they make good pens. They're just not showing that they're very good at business. If they were making runs of non-bespoke pens for stores, I'd say that they did the bulkfillers as a way to keep people busy between production runs. Their web site, however, makes it appear that they customise everything.

 

The key to keeping customers when you've made mistakes is to be as straightforward and open about the mistakes as possible. Telling people that you're "Working forward to maximize potentialities in the presentation of fine writing instruments while minimizing gaps in the workflow production process." isn't straightforward or open. Maybe it's that my uncle has make a very good living as a motivational speaker as well as assisting businesses in fixing customer relations issues (They even fly him around the world to give seminars for BP), but every business sense I have is screaming what comes out of the south end of a northbound ox. I don't believe they really know what to do.

 

They've halted ordering, and frankly, that's the best thing to do right this minute. If they'd stopped right there, and said "We've stopped taking new orders while we assess the best way to both improve our production and customer response time.", I'd be much more sanguine about them. That's an honest answer, without saying "We don't really know what to do." Instead, they added several lines that, frankly, use words without saying anything.

 

What we (or rather, those who've ordered from Conid) will have to do is wait and see what they do. If they start issuing newsletter or web updates each week, giving at least a _little_ information on what they're trying to do, then that's a positive sign. If they go dark for the next six to nine weeks, without feedback - that's a bad sign.

 

Realistically, it should take less than three days to decide what to do - and they could tell everyone what they're doing without harming trade secrets. "We're hiring three more machinists and two receptionists." Businesses do that all the time, as it makes their customers feel good that the business they are buying from is expanding. If they were a multi-million dollar company, with hundreds of employees, then a couple of weeks might be necessary to make a decision. Bespoke pen companies, unfortunately, aren't multi-million dollar businesses. Bic would hate it if FP's were popular enough again to make that a reality.

 

Heck, I don't even know for certain how much they charge for the pens. I've found one demonstrator for 615 euros at Penworld.eu, but I don't know if that's close to what they sell them for on their own site. Frankly, I'd have left the pricing intact so people could plan ahead. If it's 600 euros for a pen, that would be a fair profit on 15 man hours, being paid 20 euros per hour. (after taxes) Does it take 15 hours of production to make the pen? I don't know. I don't expect Conid to say that. That WOULD be proprietary.

 

Really - before throwing insults because you think someone is attacking one of your pet companies, think about it. I'd love to see them prosper, and their turnaround go to a reasonable time frame while responding within a day to customer requests. I just don't know that they're going to make it. We'll all have to see.

+1

[james3paris]

You gotta chill man. They're trying to figure out how to increase production while keeping the same quality control. If they don't have the right solution right now, thinking about it is a better idea than investing time in the wrong direction.

I did chill and found a used one. Quite pleased with it too!

[james3paris]

Two things. One, I wrote that before the link was posted. I just found that I never hit 'submit'. Two, they didn't say that they were actually going to fix the problem. Bluntly, they just said "This will let us catch up." Just from the time this thread has existed, they would have had enough time to establish what they were going to do when they caught up - people are more willing to wait when they know there will be a real solution in place. Otherwise, it'll be reopening for orders in 2020, and ... within three months, they'll be backlogged again.

+1 I agree with you.

[james3paris]

Nakaya is pretty slow to fulfill orders. I waited over a year for one, but I think it would be foolish to say they were a bad business. Whatever you do, don't ever start collecting Rolex's. You'll implode.

No comparison...Nakaya is a whole level over Conid. They are not even in the same league.Nakaya are pieces of art!

 

Below customizations:

 

They take in consideration the following.

 

1. How heavy is your writing pressure? Heavy (150g) Slightly Heavy Moderate (120g) Slightly Light light (90g) Other http://www.nakaya.org/en/images/ctrls_img/image001.jpg 2. What part of pen section do you hold when writing? Close to nib Slightly close to nib Midway Slightly far from nib Far from nib Other http://www.nakaya.org/en/images/ctrls_img/image004.jpg 3. Your writing speed is Fast Slightly fast Medium Slightly Slow Slow Other http://www.nakaya.org/en/images/ctrls_img/writing-speed-en.jpg 4. Your writing is

Large(9mm) Large to Medium Medium(7mm) Medium to Small Small(5mm) 5. About your letters.

Block letter Cursive Both 6. At what angle do you hold your pen? High(70ﾟ) Slightly high Average(60ﾟ) Slightly low Low(50ﾟ-45ﾟ) Other http://www.nakaya.org/en/images/ctrls_img/image002.jpg 7. How do you hold your pen? (rotation) Left Slightly left Straight Slightly right Right Other http://www.nakaya.org/en/images/ctrls_img/image003.jpg

8. Which hand do you write with?

Right hand Left hand

------------------------------------------------------------------

Edited November 17, 2019 by james3paris

[Mulrich]

I have three Conids and two Nakaya.

 

All three Conid worked perfectly from day 1. One of the Nakaya worked great but the other took multiple trips to a nibmeister before it was usable.

Nakaya are nice but I wouldn't say theyre any better than the Conids, they're just different (I actually think the Conids are better made pens with better nibs). You can also specialize a Conid nib any way you want, you just have to ask (they don't list all the options when ordering).

[NeverTapOut]

They need Marcus Lemonis from The Profit to come in help them. At the end of the day Marcus will say what he always says..."What's your process". Conid does not have an efficient process and because of the wait and disorganization they are costing themselves money...ie...future sales...it is really a shame.

 

I just read that Conid has a Process Captain...shutdown on new orders for Peace and Time...in other words...we are in over our heads and don't know what to do so please leave us alone. They are probably also having supplier issues as well. Marcus would clean house.

Edited November 17, 2019 by NeverTapOut

[Bibliophage]

I have sympathy for everyone, sort of. We have a very successful product and occasionally we get good press and what used to be a two day turn around to fill an order can slip into 5 without even noticing it. Last Christmas, we got way behind, almost 7 days and it sounds great to have all that new business but we had to pay rush shipping to make the goods arrive as promised. But in addition to the delay and all hands on deck, suddenly we have a wave of customer service calls to deal with, making things worse and worse. It's a tough one.

 

For me, the delays happen but it's the lack of communication that's inexcusable. Despite all their problems, there's still some good will for Conid. They should use this to their advantage. Silence is going to be the death of things. It would be easy enough to export all the emails into a spreadsheet, enter those into a program and send a mass mailing explaining the understand that there's a problem and they appreciate their customers' patience. That would take maybe half an hour.

 

+1

 

I think that _most_ people are good about being told there's a delay, especially if they are told why there's a delay. Even if it's something as odd as "Our normal parts delivery van hit a moose, and they're having to argue with insurance before we're allowed to take the boxes out of the back."

 

My family has been known to put pictures of items in a card for Christmas or Birthdays, when that item has been delayed in shipping. It happens. Nobody gets upset - unless they were told straight out it would be on-hand at a specific time.

[NeverTapOut]

Bottom line their process is broken and not efficient. They are using the cut off to get caught up and I highly doubt they fix the process regardless of what is said. I do believe their intentions are good however this is a classic study of mismanagement of a business.

Edited November 17, 2019 by NeverTapOut

[Bibliophage]

Bottom line their process is broken and not efficient. They are using the cut off to get caught up and I highly doubt they fix the process regardless of what is said. I do believe their intentions are good however this is a classic study of mismanagement of a business.

Despite what I've said, I don't know that it is a classic study of mismanagement. Without pulling their corporate filings, _none_ of us can say anything about how Conid is run. It _looks like_ it's being run as part of the main company, but as a sub brand. That would mean that Conid is the afterthought, as they get the rest of their work done. So the focus would have to be on their primary brand - Komec. However, there's no way to know without actually banging on their door and asking.

 

The "Fix" would be to have employees that do nothing BUT Conid, at least for customer support. I doubt they'd need more than one full-time person, especially if their focus is on email.

 

Also - Broken and Not Efficient aren't quite the same thing. I'll agree that it sounds like they aren't very efficient, but they do product quality pens. That means it's not broken.

[NeverTapOut]

I agree with what you are saying. They do need customer support however I would add they need manufacturing help just to keep up with demand...thus the shutdown on new orders.

[Bibliophage]

I agree with what you are saying. They do need customer support however I would add they need manufacturing help just to keep up with demand...thus the shutdown on new orders.

Even if they hire people, the shutdown is a good idea. They'd have to train anyone new anyway, which will slow things down to start, rather than speed them up. It's a specialty niche product, and even if it's, say, someone operating a CNC system, with experience, they'll take a bit to get up to speed for a new product.

[A Smug Dill]

Bottom line their process is broken and not efficient.

Also - Broken and Not Efficient aren't quite the same thing. I'll agree that it sounds like they aren't very efficient, but they do product quality pens. That means it's not broken.

If a process is not fit for purpose then it's broken. A process that is required, designed and expected to produce M widgets every N days, that consistently or frequently fails to meet those targets despite the absence of special cause variation, is a broken process even the (significantly fewer than M) widgets it manages to produce are of acceptable, or even high, quality when product quality is assessed as a standalone criterion or metric. Fitness for purpose is not usually one-dimensional.

 

On the other hand, a process that takes twice as long as the industry average of N days, to produce a widget that meets a particular set of functional and qualitative criteria, is demonstrably not efficient, but may not be broken if the producer employing that process only expects to deliver within 2.5N days of receiving an order, and managing product demand and/or order pipeline successfully such that the target is consistently met for all orders.

 

So, yes, broken and not efficient are not quite the same thing in that they are orthogonal, but they aren't mutually exclusive, and a process can be both.

 

All the same, I'm very glad to see all this robust discussion, and sincerely thank you both for that. Conid obviously has problems with its production process(es), and what is not obvious is whether its management staff have a concrete plan for change that they are confident will resolve those problems. Even if the company is truly going to concurrently hire more production staff and increase the level of automation, it still does not mean — much less guarantee — that it can meet delivery targets after those changes; the positive effects may not necessarily be sufficient, and there is also potential for unforeseen negative effects.

 

Conid announcement:

https://www.conidpen.com/pause-to-restart/?utm_source=ActiveCampaign&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Conid+Newsletter+November&utm_campaign=Conid+newsletter+November+2019

I see no admission of missteps in Conid's announcement, and no apology with or without admitting fault or incompetence. "Unfortunately, we’ve been quite overwhelmed" implies it was something done to the company by external forces, not something wrong with the planning or management of its production capability.

 

• 253 Bulkfillers / 6 people = 42 pens per person in 6 months
• or 253 in 6 months = 1.3 pen(s) / day 24/7 without breaks

What other small pen manufacturer makes a unique well engineered bespoke pen at this pace and known quality?

 

Being small is of no concern and no value-add to the paying customer. Being small is not a valid excuse for failing to deliver to targets and customer expectations set by the company itself prior to accepting orders. Being small does not implicitly engender trust and goodwill (what, for being the underdog?) or warrant forgiveness from customers.

 

The company's technical innovation has already been rewarded with a patent, and it could choose whether to be the sole producer or license the design to other manufacturers in the industry. The company has also already been rewarded for the Bulkfiller's engineering and product quality, and customisation in allowing customer selection in a (limited) number of aspects of each pen, by enhanced reputation and more prepaid orders which translates to increased cash flow and better prospects of profit.

 

Why should failure to deliver be excused on the basis of being small, "boutique", a "side gig", innovative or "bespoke"? I have nothing against incumbent and prospective owners loving a product (or product family); but "bad" (as in inadequate) planning, people, process — and the organisation that embodies such — is the enemy of good product, so why wouldn't fans of the product want the company to be publicly chastised and put under pressure by the "community" or specific target customer base?

 

I'd have thought, "P***, or get off the pot and license the design to a manufacturer that is more competent in delivering!" would be the better tack to protect or increase the ongoing availability of the product that is so favourably regarded.

 

I received an email response from Conid today regarding my order status. I was informed that Conid is currently "at least 9 weeks behind on schedule". I was told they were unable to provide my accurate estimate of the completion/ship date for the pen.

 

This I would find galling. It's rudimentary project management and engineering practice. Assuming no queue-jumping, the company ought to be able to work out — based on the design and recent performance of its current production capability, as well as resource availability forecasts — when each particular pen on order in the production pipeline will be completed, with a high level of confidence, even if the projected delivery date looks bad. Being able to "reset" customer expectations for each individual unfulfilled order with humble apology, then proceeding to demonstrate that it knows what it's doing by consistently meeting the new, specific delivery targets, is the way to regain trust and repair its reputation. That management seems not to be able to know and say, "Production of the pen on order #01234 will commence on 13/12/2019, which is 123 calendar days after the order date, and based on machine and staff availability (including scheduled shutdowns and approved leave days) its production will complete in 23 calendar days from commencement," with >95% confidence themselves does not encourage customer confidence in the company.

[Karmachanic]

If a process is not fit for purpose then it's broken. A process that is required, designed and expected to produce M widgets every N days, that consistently or frequently fails to meet those targets despite the absence of special cause variation, is a broken process even the (significantly fewer than M) widgets it manages to produce are of acceptable, or even high, quality when product quality is assessed as a standalone criterion or metric. Fitness for purpose is not usually one-dimensional.

 

On the other hand, a process that takes twice as long as the industry average of N days, to produce a widget that meets a particular set of functional and qualitative criteria, is demonstrably not efficient, but may not be broken if the producer employing that process only expects to deliver within 2.5N days of receiving an order, and managing product demand and/or order pipeline successfully such that the target is consistently met for all orders.

 

So, yes, broken and not efficient are not quite the same thing in that they are orthogonal, but they aren't mutually exclusive, and a process can be both.

 

All the same, I'm very glad to see all this robust discussion, and sincerely thank you both for that. Conid obviously has problems with its production process(es), and what is not obvious is whether its management staff have a concrete plan for change that they are confident will resolve those problems. Even if the company is truly going to concurrently hire more production staff and increase the level of automation, it still does not mean — much less guarantee — that it can meet delivery targets after those changes; the positive effects may not necessarily be sufficient, and there is also potential for unforeseen negative effects.

 

I see no admission of missteps in Conid's announcement, and no apology with or without admitting fault or incompetence. "Unfortunately, we’ve been quite overwhelmed" implies it was something done to the company by external forces, not something wrong with the planning or management of its production capability.

 

Being small is of no concern and no value-add to the paying customer. Being small is not a valid excuse for failing to deliver to targets and customer expectations set by the company itself prior to accepting orders. Being small does not implicitly engender trust and goodwill (what, for being the underdog?) or warrant forgiveness from customers.

 

The company's technical innovation has already been rewarded with a patent, and it could choose whether to be the sole producer or license the design to other manufacturers in the industry. The company has also already been rewarded for the Bulkfiller's engineering and product quality, and customisation in allowing customer selection in a (limited) number of aspects of each pen, by enhanced reputation and more prepaid orders which translates to increased cash flow and better prospects of profit.

 

Why should failure to deliver be excused on the basis of being small, "boutique", a "side gig", innovative or "bespoke"? I have nothing against incumbent and prospective owners loving a product (or product family); but "bad" (as in inadequate) planning, people, process — and the organisation that embodies such — is the enemy of good product, so why wouldn't fans of the product want the company to be publicly chastised and put under pressure by the "community" or specific target customer base?

 

I'd have thought, "P***, or get off the pot and license the design to a manufacturer that is more competent in delivering!" would be the better tack to protect or increase the ongoing availability of the product that is so favourably regarded.

 

 

This I would find galling. It's rudimentary project management and engineering practice. Assuming no queue-jumping, the company ought to be able to work out — based on the design and recent performance of its current production capability, as well as resource availability forecasts — when each particular pen on order in the production pipeline will be completed, with a high level of confidence, even if the projected delivery date looks bad. Being able to "reset" customer expectations for each individual unfulfilled order with humble apology, then proceeding to demonstrate that it knows what it's doing by consistently meeting the new, specific delivery targets, is the way to regain trust and repair its reputation. That management seems not to be able to know and say, "Production of the pen on order #01234 will commence on 13/12/2019, which is 123 calendar days after the order date, and based on machine and staff availability (including scheduled shutdowns and approved leave days) its production will complete in 23 calendar days from commencement," with >95% confidence themselves does not encourage customer confidence in the company.

 

 

Too bad they didn't consult you before going into business.

[Bibliophage]

 

 

Too bad they didn't consult you before going into business.

It could be they operate their _main_ business exactly like that - but decided that Conid didn't need that level of dedication.

[OmegaMountain]

And yet many have no qualms with waiting a year or more for certain bespoke Japanese pens... Could be that Conid underestimated the demand for $500+ custom pens and received many more orders recently than anticipated based on prior year's sales. When I bought my Minamalistica it took a bit longer than first quoted, but that was a few years ago when they were just gaining steam. Perhaps they should be given some time to see if they can make the necessary changes to improve efficiency.

[A Smug Dill]

Perhaps they should be given some time to see if they can make the necessary changes to improve efficiency.

 

 

I don't think anyone is calling yet for the company to be wound down or completely boycotted for its current trend of failure to deliver on time. An admission of poor planning and/or miscalculation, and a sincere and unreserved apology to those customers who have been let down, in the meantime would probably stand Conid in better stead with the community.

 

Also, even without improving efficiency, the "process captain" and/or managing engineer should still be able to work out when each order already accepted and in the queue can be fulfilled; that's just simple mathematics that can be done using project management software or even a spreadsheet application, if the company has a solid grasp of how its production capability is performing — not just "poorly" or "overwhelmed", but where the bottlenecks on the critical path are and how (possibly variably) long each particular order will have to wait "at the gate" because of it.

 

Furthermore, customers who have placed orders that are already late for delivery, but for which production has not yet commenced, should be proactively offered both the option of cancelling for a full refund and an iron-clad guarantee of what they will receive by which date if they choose not to cancel, once the latest completion date of each pen has been thus calculated. I'm confident not everyone will choose to cancel. Obviously cancellations are likely to have a financial impact on the company in the short term, but given its management has created its own problem, that very "punishment" should not be up to Conid to try to unilaterally avoid, but those who are already invested (by having handed money over months ago) should be given a say whether the withdraw with little or no regard for how it would affect the company.

[NeverTapOut]

If a process is not fit for purpose then it's broken. A process that is required, designed and expected to produce M widgets every N days, that consistently or frequently fails to meet those targets despite the absence of special cause variation, is a broken process even the (significantly fewer than M) widgets it manages to produce are of acceptable, or even high, quality when product quality is assessed as a standalone criterion or metric. Fitness for purpose is not usually one-dimensional.

 

On the other hand, a process that takes twice as long as the industry average of N days, to produce a widget that meets a particular set of functional and qualitative criteria, is demonstrably not efficient, but may not be broken if the producer employing that process only expects to deliver within 2.5N days of receiving an order, and managing product demand and/or order pipeline successfully such that the target is consistently met for all orders.

 

So, yes, broken and not efficient are not quite the same thing in that they are orthogonal, but they aren't mutually exclusive, and a process can be both.

 

All the same, I'm very glad to see all this robust discussion, and sincerely thank you both for that. Conid obviously has problems with its production process(es), and what is not obvious is whether its management staff have a concrete plan for change that they are confident will resolve those problems. Even if the company is truly going to concurrently hire more production staff and increase the level of automation, it still does not mean — much less guarantee — that it can meet delivery targets after those changes; the positive effects may not necessarily be sufficient, and there is also potential for unforeseen negative effects.

 

I see no admission of missteps in Conid's announcement, and no apology with or without admitting fault or incompetence. "Unfortunately, we’ve been quite overwhelmed" implies it was something done to the company by external forces, not something wrong with the planning or management of its production capability.

 

Being small is of no concern and no value-add to the paying customer. Being small is not a valid excuse for failing to deliver to targets and customer expectations set by the company itself prior to accepting orders. Being small does not implicitly engender trust and goodwill (what, for being the underdog?) or warrant forgiveness from customers.

 

The company's technical innovation has already been rewarded with a patent, and it could choose whether to be the sole producer or license the design to other manufacturers in the industry. The company has also already been rewarded for the Bulkfiller's engineering and product quality, and customisation in allowing customer selection in a (limited) number of aspects of each pen, by enhanced reputation and more prepaid orders which translates to increased cash flow and better prospects of profit.

 

Why should failure to deliver be excused on the basis of being small, "boutique", a "side gig", innovative or "bespoke"? I have nothing against incumbent and prospective owners loving a product (or product family); but "bad" (as in inadequate) planning, people, process — and the organisation that embodies such — is the enemy of good product, so why wouldn't fans of the product want the company to be publicly chastised and put under pressure by the "community" or specific target customer base?

 

I'd have thought, "P***, or get off the pot and license the design to a manufacturer that is more competent in delivering!" would be the better tack to protect or increase the ongoing availability of the product that is so favourably regarded.

 

 

This I would find galling. It's rudimentary project management and engineering practice. Assuming no queue-jumping, the company ought to be able to work out — based on the design and recent performance of its current production capability, as well as resource availability forecasts — when each particular pen on order in the production pipeline will be completed, with a high level of confidence, even if the projected delivery date looks bad. Being able to "reset" customer expectations for each individual unfulfilled order with humble apology, then proceeding to demonstrate that it knows what it's doing by consistently meeting the new, specific delivery targets, is the way to regain trust and repair its reputation. That management seems not to be able to know and say, "Production of the pen on order #01234 will commence on 13/12/2019, which is 123 calendar days after the order date, and based on machine and staff availability (including scheduled shutdowns and approved leave days) its production will complete in 23 calendar days from commencement," with >95% confidence themselves does not encourage customer confidence in the company

 

A Smug Dill...+1...eloquently put.

 

This is not directed at you SD...This is regarding other posts I read...

 

Another example would be say seasonal help in a department store at Christmas Time. A store does not shut down to train new people for Christmas. Conid are already behind...the best thing that they can do is hire and have them watch and learn on the job. If they need "peace"...and they already have the patent...they should out source manufacturing to a company that meets their quality of production...there is no risk because they have the patent...they just have to pick the right company that meets their quality standards. If they did that...they would have less stressed and probably would make more money because they could fulfill orders and take on new orders. I would also venture they are probably having vendor supply problems as well.

Their problem is a good problem the have...too much demand for their side hussle. The bad part is they have no idea how to fix it. I believe their intentions are good. Henry Ford was an inventor and also had a process that is still used to this day and the Japanese perfected that process. Francis is an inventor however he is lacking in process skill set. Francis has a member of his team with the title of "Process Captain". This is also not a new problem for Conid. They have had delays for years from reading other members posts. I am not being hostile towards Conid...these are just the facts and it is not a hard problem to fix. Lack of contact with you customer is the worst thing you can do and probably the easiest to fix. I will admit that I use to have a similar problem 15 years ago so I am sympathetic to what they are going through.

[mongrelnomad]

So many armchair CEOs.

 

Sigh.

[A Smug Dill]

A Smug Dill...+1...eloquently put.

Thank you.

 

This is also not a new problem for Conid. They have had delays for years from reading other members posts.

As an observer that only sees the odd Conid product review, company announcement, and relatively more frequent input from both fans and disappointed customers (and, just to be clear, they are customers by virtue of having placed orders and paid money, even if they may not have ever used a Conid pen to appreciate the product because the company have yet to deliver their orders)...

 

I can't help but get the sense more and more that a concurrent problem — which would equally not be a new one — for Conid is that its executive management isn't forward and proactive in identifying and acknowledging problems, admitting mistakes and "owning" or taking responsibility for those, and dealing with it as "only business" and nothing personal or ego-bruising.

 

I am not being hostile towards Conid...these are just the facts and it is not a hard problem to fix. Lack of contact with you customer is the worst thing you can do and probably the easiest to fix. I will admit that I use to have a similar problem 15 years ago so I am sympathetic to what they are going through.

I, for one, don't think you're being hostile to the company or its fans. However, I've spent enough time on different online forums to have observed this strange phenomenon that some people seem to want, and in effect demand, faceless strangers who are their peers and equals to echo their sentiments in discussions or be treated as hostile. I highly value everyone's contribution in terms of facts, reasoning and analysis, but sentiments are "private" in the sense that it's not for others to either change through badgering, or "respect" by pretending there is inherent merit in someone's emotions that demands acknowledgement or accommodation. If I feel strongly about (or against) something, I certainly don't require that others feel the same way to feel righteous or validated; but I'd be interested in hearing either critiques or further development of reasoned argument about the topic at hand. Maybe I got my facts wrong. Maybe my reasoning is flawed. But what is certainly not required is for everyone to feel the same way about a product, company or pursuit to have a meaningful conversation that is of value to the community, that may or may not prompt other spectators to gravitate towards one position or another.

 

So many armchair CEOs.

 

Sigh.

I wasn't a CEO, isn't one now, and don't aspire to be one, but large corporations that people just love to hate used to pay me quite a bit if money to identify and analyse their problems, and tell them what they don't really want to hear until the numbers just stare them in the face unrelentingly.

 

I was "wheeled in front of" other execs by an executive manager into a reporting meeting he called, after doing quite a thorough analysis he commissioned, because he wanted me to do the explaining in case he caught flak for it. I explained it, and he caught flak for it anyway while I was sitting there because nobody wanted to argue with hard facts, numbers and analysis I presented. Yes, there was also lots of reluctance on that occasion in acknowledge problems and owning responsibility for them. That's the nub of it, I'm not invested emotionally or otherwise, and I don't care who wins or loses, who survives or don't, and whose ego gets bruised.

 

I left the office politics, personality conflicts and turf wars to those guys. I also never volunteered to solve their problems, including ones that I've just analysed and reported on, because that wasn't what they paid me to do on agreed terms; so stating and quantifying the problems, and maybe tracing how they originated and what's on the horizon that could make them worse or introduce new problems, was the extent of what I was engaged to do.

 

However, I don't hate them personally for not having either the discipline or know-how to fix the problems, and I wouldn't do anything out of my way to exacerbate their problems. Leaving them to their own devices for all to see was usually a good strategy, especially when one can choose not to be involved or invested in a particular enterprise, and as spectators and commenters just let them sink or swim.

 

Why some people here are so against others doing just that with Conid is beyond me.

Edited November 18, 2019 by A Smug Dill