|
"Power Quality is 'service orientated', The whole aim of presenting findings is to indicate why the client is suffering the symptoms they are. Simply "clearing your name" can turn out to be exceedingly costly. Clients usually don't believe people who transfer the blame to a third party without absolute proof the third party is to blame. Unless a fault is clearly shown, or at least a clear direction towards finding the fault is indicated, clients are likely to keep blaming the supplier and results in multiple visits to the site. A short story to prove this point; A domestic customer complained bitterly of excessive flicker. The regional electricity supply company did an investigation and found the incoming feed to be better than their accepted level, but still spent thousands of pounds redoing the main feed to the house in an attempt to improve the situation. All was in vain. The downfall was during their repeated visits they only ever measured at the meter point, this being the boundary of their responsibility. No-one had thought to do a measurement inside the house to prove the house wiring was at fault. The moment a report showing this was presented to the client the blame stopped.
"The bane of the customer" When it comes to simply knowing if a supply "is meeting the rough spec", then these prove to be a sincere friend to the inexperienced wannabe power quality investigator. They are handy, to a small extent, when looking at statistical trends and wanting to know if there is a "move away from a what was a norm". The only time I have success in convincing people of the dangers of these automated report generators is when the frustrated customer of the inexperienced investigator calls asking for clarification on the report. The process starts with my asking for the real data, not the product of some report generator. Suddenly there is a realization that what was being presented to him has no means to relay any fault information to him. An example of a common failing of such report generators is waveform capture. They will usually pick on one that is related to a known occurance (e.g. a network switch) and miss reporting on the very type of thing causing, for example, the computer crash. Although I have appeared harsh towards the automatically generated report, they do have a place in the whole reporting structure as they usually provide a "snapshot" of the power at the time of fault and therefore a reference for future investigations. But use them as an investigation tool? Never!
Reports should be in a language that "the man in the street" can understand. There are going to be times when there will be a need to use technical terminology, but this can still be accompanied by quantifying statements such as "and as can be seen, the internal wiring contributes 75% to the problem". Deliberate use of confusing technical terms could have a non-technical client believing you're trying to hide something. Avoid the pitfalls of "there is nothing wrong with your supply". This is not what the client is wanting to hear. If it later turns out that there was a problem that you missed, it may cost you your job! Rather concentrate on the truth, and present it factually. A simple but effective method is to describe the problem being investigated, how the test was conducted, and what findings were found. If you then wish, add how this impacts the client ensuring that special attention is given to the "magnitude of the problem". If you believe you have a workable solution then present this too, but only do so if you're absolutely sure. Graphs, if simple and easily readable, are a perfect way to present findings. Superb examples are when having to show comparative issues, such as differing feed impedances in a flicker problem. A word of warning; don't use dark coloured backgrounds. They waste a lot of ink and are difficult to read on paper.
The above section will sound perfectly logical to any normal individual, but there is a herd of beasts found in the Power Quality engineering field that one needs to be very wary of! I have written many power quality survey and investigation reports, and every time there is a decent engineer on the receiving end there is no problem. Usually it is only written once, and might attract the odd, very justifiable question. These guys have my blessing in calling themselves Consultants. There have been times too when I wonder whether I am justified in using the term on my business card as I could be viewed as liking myself to their superior level of expertise! As many that use the title with my blessing, there are many more who do but shouldn't. They are easily recognised (although, by then, it is often too late!) by either punching holes in your findings therefore insulting you, or will make the most hideous of mistakes and therefore insult one's intelligence. Their business card will say "Consultant", but it is a gross misspelling! Their most common tactic is to keep asking for findings to be changed into different formats, claiming the results are "unreadable" (yet when printed they are fine). Here one needs to interpret the word "unreadable". What they want to say (but cannot, for fear of losing face) is "the graph is not informing me if the client has a problem". Ah, what they mean is "I don't know how to read this graph". Now their business cards, some even adorning the crest of a multi-national consulting firm, definitely have the spelling mistake! If you do get a person like this, ask the question "what is it you are wanting to see?" and insist on them being very specific (even to the point of getting them to write it down!). If they cannot be specific, it probably means they are battling to interpret the requests/requirements of their client. Ask to speak to the client and get the desired results from them (and keep climbing the ladder till you reach the person who can provide the specifics you're looking for). Armed with the detailed requirements will place you in a position whereby you can provide the data required by the person at the beginning of the chain. The adage "time spent in preparation is never time wasted" is ever so true - just view the process of getting the specifics as part of the preparation. Learn from someone who has suffered!
© 01.08.03 |
INTERPRETING THE READINGS: