[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

# Fw: accu feed

- To: <salestalk@dieboldes.com>
- Subject: Fw: accu feed
- From: "John L. Mc Laurin" <asailsman@earthlink.net>
- Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 13:59:21 -0500
- Cc: "Robert Picket" <rpglobal@aol.com>, "Wes Krivanek" <geniek@datasys.net>, "Frank Kaplan" <fkglobal@aol.com>

-----Original Message-----
From: Ian S. Piper <ian@dieboldes.com>
To: John L. Mc Laurin <asailsman@earthlink.net>
Cc: announce@dieboldes.com <announce@dieboldes.com>
Date: Wednesday, February 10, 1999 1:47 PM
Subject: Re: accu feed
"John L. Mc Laurin" wrote:

> Has there been any further development on the status of our Accu Feed. I.e. - reliability, faster, new design?

Hi John and others:

We are currently awaiting a proposal from an engineering firm for a retrofit design for the current feeder. That proposal is scheduled to be in the latter part of this week. The retrofit design is to produce a retrofit for an existing Accu-Feed that will make it more reliable, not faster.

We are also requesting proposals for new designs of a faster ballot counting system, but the retrofit feeder design has priority at this time.

The faster ballot counting system design is in its conception stage (not even an infant yet). I have surveyed in-house marketing and in-house support staff on features for this design, which has served for the initial steps we needed to take for this project, but at this time I would like gather input from the field sales and field support staff. I will not list off the features that we have discussed so far as I want everybody to give me a fresh approach that is unrestricted.

Remember, be realistic about what you perceive as the needs of the customer. Technology can do a lot these days but it still can't perform miracles. If you want this thing to fly to the moon, it may take 10 to 20 years to design it at a +$1,000,000 product cost.

Think not only of technical features but also ergonomics (i.e., shape, size, weight, operator access areas, operation flow, throughput, etc.). I want to see your responses in an organized list (e.g. with headings like Technical Features, Ergonomic Features, Marketing Features, etc.).

Each feature is to have a weighting factor as follows:

3 Have to have it,
2 Should have it, if it can be done,
1 Not really necessary, but it would be nice.

Only those responses that come in by Monday, February 22, 1999 will have a chance for consideration. This isn't short notice; you've probably already dreamed about what you want it to do, now put it to paper (or E-mail, which is just as good).

I thank you in advance for your contributions. I hope we can all work toward a feasible solution.

Sincerely:

Ian S. Piper

- Prev by Date: The Hawiian Election
- Next by Date: Hawaii Dallas Articles
- Index(es):
  - Chronological
  - Thread