Components – there’s an App for that
01 March 2010
The latest way to ensure that no time is wasted by engineers was unveiled by Digi-Key a couple of weeks back – the Digi-App.
Digi-App is not the real name, I have just made it up, but it is an App, available from the iTunes App store, that essentially allows full access to the Digi-Key inventory through an iPhone or iPod Touch. It includes specifications, photo’s and buyers advice and training. Clever stuff and I don’t imagine that it is Digi-Key’s intention for it to replace any existing sales channels, rather to give another option to ensure that an engineer always can put his hands on his components.
‘At work, at home, or somewhere in between……..’ reads the press release extolling its advantages. In some ways it is an obvious thing for Digi-Key to do. They are filling a potential gap in the engineers day and helps ensure a round the clock service even when other options are unavailable. I am not sure what the differences are between having a dedicated App and having smartphone access to a website – I remember RS launched a phone-friendly web offering a year ago.
My only concern is that the next generation (my children for example) do not use such tools wisely. Companies like Digi-Key and RS continually innovate to provide engineers with the best possible service, and they are doing a great job. The only potential losers are those struggling to keep a sensible work/life balance, or even those who are unaware that there is such a thing. If you are bought up with entertainment on demand – 24 hours a day – then it follows that you may use the same tools to supply and receive information on demand in a work context, without having any boundaries for when it is time to stop. Modern culture has moved on from work being a 9 to 5 function, but it would be shame if it moved to such an extent that the notion of ‘free time’ was lost completely.
On a completely different topic I thought I would bring you a response to my comment from a few weeks back called ‘Easy defence of corrupt deals’, from a reader called Rod Dailitz who used to work as an engineer for one of the world’s largest defence contractors. My column basically called into question the integrity of the trade in arms, while I have published Rod’s response because it highlights the grey areas that turn this subject into a metaphorical minefield. I have decided to take out the name of the company just in case there was any implication, which I am sure is entirely unintentional, that bribery was ‘acceptable’ in the company that Rod then worked for.
Rod writes: "I have to recognise that there are parts of the world where you don't do business unless you pay someone. In my previous job in Automation, people used to talk of a "finder's fee" which I guess equates to a salesman's commission. The whole question is clouded by comparison with eating in a restaurant, where it is customary to give a tip - how to rationalise a tip for eating, a tip for the cloakroom, a tip to the taxi, no tip for a drink in a pub or staying in a B&B, a bigger tip to ensure a nice window table? So sometimes it is correct and acceptable to pay a "tip," other times it is unacceptable and termed a "bribe."
What I do recognise is that corruption, especially in the sense of channeling funds into a ruler's pocket, is one of the worst aspects of too many countries. Corruption leads directly to injustice, poverty, and high death rates, and it would benefit way over 99.9% of humans if corruption could be recognised and stamped out.
What is less clear is which examples of corruption are most critical. Paying a Saudi a small percentage to obtain a contract as a normal part of business there, is quite different from rigging elections as has been reported in Iran, diverting aid as has been reported in Haiti, or mis-using positions of power as has been reported in the UK. By comparison, housebreaking and burglary, or theft of a motor vehicle, is in a different class from exceeding the speed limit or dropping a cigarette butt in the gutter.
To reply more directly to your column, I do not accept that the arms trade should not be run using a strict moral or legal code. Selling alcohol or tobacco requires at least as much careful consideration. I would quote: "To enjoy peace, we must be prepared to defend it." Neighbourhood security requires a strong police force. World security requires a strong but responsible army.
There are two angles to arms, one business and one political. Although it is fair enough to sell Army-spec trucks to just about anyone, and rifles and Hawk aircraft to countries which are not antagonists, there is a strong political angle in selling top-of-the-range fighters and Cruise missiles. Also, unlike a fleet of cars, when someone wants to upgrade their Tornado aircraft, that isn't really an open market. And when a friendly government wants to strengthen its armed forces and we see a possibility of a stronger ally in that area, the UK might subsidise that sale.
At some point arms sales becomes a thing which should be left to the government. That could be simply awarding export licenses, or more pro-actively negotiating.
However, at that point one has to step back and consider who IS the government? The government may change from time to time, like Obama replacing Bush. Certainly the US government has made some wrong steps along the way, like supporting the Mujahedin against the Soviets, and supporting the Shah of Iran for too long. However working out the rights and wrongs of North Korea or Myanmar is hard, let alone Tibet."
If you would like to respond to anything you have read on EMTWorldWide then comments are always very welcome and can be published when I think they extend and add to a discussion.
Contact Details and Archive...
Most Viewed Articles...