Assembly Challenges:

As mentioned in the previous update, CNC manufacturing was initially scheduled to be completed by August 8th, with assembly expected to take two days. We anticipated that everything would be ready for shipment by August 13th. However, here’s what went wrong:

Problem 1: Surface Finish – August 8th

The aluminum parts were made from 6mm stock aluminum plates, which came with a factory brush finish on their surface. Since the parts were exactly 6mm thick, the stock material was used directly without any additional surface treatment. Unfortunately, sandblasting and anodizing were insufficient to achieve a smooth finish, leaving the factory brush marks visible. This not only caused an unpleasant sound when the bottom plate was moved but also resulted in an unsatisfactory aesthetic appearance.

Cause:
The manufacturer overlooked previous feedback and did not address this issue in the earlier prototypes.

Solution:
The manufacturer had to send all parts back to the anodizing department to remove the anodizing layer. Each part was then manually brushed before being sent back for a second round of anodizing.

Result:
This process resulted in a 5-day delay.

Problem 2: Assembly Complications – August 13th (450 kg of Hardware)

The CNC manufacturer had agreed to handle the assembly process, promising that it would take two days with a team of 10 people working daily. On August 14th, I arrived at the factory after having previously sent all parts for assembly from 14 different manufacturers. These included laser-cutting, printshop, nylon cases, hardware, injection molding, accessories, etc. Upon receiving 450 kg of hardware and over 50 boxes of nylon cases, the factory manager was shocked by the scope of the task, realizing that the complexity of the process had been underestimated.

The first two days were spent sorting the hardware into smaller boxes, attaching knobs to the edge guides, and assembling the basic geometry of the jig itself—200 pieces out of the 1,500.

Cause:
This issue arose from my miscommunication with the factory manager. I relied too heavily on his personal experience instead of clearly explaining each step of the assembly process, calculating the total required time, dividing it by working hours, and providing an exact schedule for the assembly.

Solution:
Despite the initial shock, the responsible manager took on the assembly task regardless of the time required. I personally stayed at the factory, overseeing and explaining every step of the process for the first nine days until we reached the final stage.

Result:
This led to a significant waste of time and resources.

Problem 3: Engraving Mistake – August 14th

Upon inspecting the parts on my first day at the factory, I discovered that the engraving on the bottom plate was from the previous model instead of the current one. By this time, 700 units had already been engraved, meaning these parts had to undergo the same surface finish correction process: re-anodizing, manual brushing, re-anodizing again, and then sent back for new engraving.

In addition to this mistake, the engraving of the ruler was incorrect and out of scale, forcing us to find a new engraving manufacturer in a very short period.

Cause:
The manufacturer decided to switch engraving shops at the last minute for personal reasons, which led to misunderstandings in the documentation. Despite my repeated emphasis on the complexity and importance of the ruler engraving, the manufacturer failed to give it the necessary attention, even though I had personally engraved 500 units with the previous manufacturer.

Solution:
A high-end engraving shop was hired on short notice, which significantly increased the cost—tripling the price compared to the previous one.

Result:
This caused a partial delay in the assembly process, potentially extending the timeline by up to two weeks.

Problem 4: Dirt and Scratches on Parts – August 15th

While inspecting the router holder part of the jig (a black square part), I noticed that 80% of the parts had surface finish issues, including scratches and water marks.

Solution:
The factory workers had to evaluate the entire production batch, select the good parts, and send the rest back to the anodizing department for the same process: de-anodizing with sandblasting, manual brushing, and re-anodizing.

Cause:
The CNC manufacturer’s staff failed to check the anodized parts thoroughly and did not implement strict quality control with the anodizing department.

Result:
This led to a partial delay in the assembly process, requiring up to 13 days to fully resolve the issue.

Current Status:

As of today, approximately 600 units have been completed, assembled, and are ready for shipping. The remaining 900 units are expected to be ready for shipment by September 10th.

Thank you very much for your patience, understanding, and continued support.