Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
In our podcast, we dive deep into metrology, calibration, and proficiency testing bringing you real stories, expert insights, and candid conversations from our 85+ years of combined experience. This isn’t just another technical podcast; we’re here to challenge the status quo, discuss industry changes, and tackle big questions like whether calibration labs are failing to train the next generation or if automation has gone too far. Expect lively discussions, industry leaders as guests, and a little fun along the way. As Howard puts it, “Proficiency testing is checking that transition from theory to application. But what happens when techs are just pushing buttons?” And Chuck adds, “We’re not teaching technicians how to measure anymore—we’re teaching them how to press ‘go.’” Whether we’re reflecting on our journeys—like Howard’s path from Air Force electronics to writing calibration procedures for the NFL—or debating metrology’s future, we promise to keep it engaging, informative, and unfiltered.
Chuck (00:12):
Welcome to Chat NAPT with ar Taylor Box chunking Halloween, which again sponsored by the National Association for Proficiency Testing, a podcast about all things metrology. Howard, my friend, how are you today?
Howie (00:26):
Well, I'd like to say I'm good, but Chiefs lost yesterday to the Eagles, and I know how it feels to be the prey of a large bird. Let's just say that their defense dominated our offense. We couldn't figure it out.
Chuck (00:45):
I definitely knew we would talk about that this morning and definitely date when we recorded this particular cast. But we did think about you last night. We host a small party and Did
Howie (00:55):
You? Yeah, we had a small bird.
Chuck (00:57):
Yeah, we did think about you and the sorrow that you and your wonderful wife were feeling, but you have our sympathies, but that was painful. I have to admit, the only people that were here last night are going to believe me, but I saw this coming. I am going to call myself Notre Dam was the second Notre
Howie (01:16):
Dam Nous. That's right. Here he comes.
Chuck (01:18):
Yeah, the second, because I don't know, I just had this weird thing about making these predictions that seem to come true. But anyways,
Howie (01:27):
You used to watch Johnny Carson.
Chuck (01:29):
I love Johnny Carson.
Howie (01:30):
Do you remember? Was it Carac?
Chuck (01:32):
Carac and Magnificent?
Howie (01:33):
It would be the answer. They'd blow the envelope open, pull it out, and that was the answer of the question. That's you. The great carac.
Chuck (01:41):
Yeah, the great carac. That really tells how old that we are.
Howie (01:45):
I know.
Chuck (01:47):
We start talking about, I am going to tell you the truth, Howard. I don't watch new television. There's absolutely nothing.
Howie (01:55):
All the guest hosts, I mean, Leno replaced him, and then the other ones sprung up Letterman, and now we've got all these other ones that are newer and they're not as funny to me as Carson was.
Chuck (02:07):
They're all political. Yeah, it's
Howie (02:09):
Mostly political.
Chuck (02:11):
They don't, not energy. They're not entertaining anymore. They're really not entertaining, which is sad, but I watch a lot of black and white TV now. I watch the older channels. I stream, believe it or not, gun Smoke
Howie (02:24):
Me tv. I just had a little lunch break and I was watching five minutes of gun Smoke.
Chuck (02:29):
Yeah,
Howie (02:30):
BTV, get television, all that stuff is pretty good.
Chuck (02:34):
Yeah. As a matter of fact, we don't even have cable anymore. All we do is stream these services, like these services that you can stream. We have a Samsung tv, and so with Samsung TV you get free channels and we have 243 channels.
Howie (02:53):
Those channels are how we started watching Baywatch and all the spinoffs.
Chuck (02:59):
We
Howie (02:59):
Never watched it when it came out. It just wasn't anything that appealed to us.
Chuck (03:04):
But
Howie (03:04):
Then we were in between, we decided to get rid of the cable. We decided to go with Antenna tv and you get maybe 40, 50 channels, and then you had the Samsung channels. So we started watching Baywatch, and not that we got hooked, but it was just something that was on every night. Right. So now I know more about Bay Washington than I ever wanted to know because of that.
Chuck (03:24):
Yeah, I'm sure it was great television, great writing back in the days of the Hill Street Blues. Those are the good shows. So Well, we could go down this road for the full podcast for talking
Howie (03:37):
About Yeah, maybe we'll have another podcast about nostalgia.
Chuck (03:41):
Yeah, maybe we need to have more podcasts, just you and I, so we can explore these conversations that people like to set at tables and watch us drink wine and make fools of ourselves with, but we
Howie (03:52):
Have all the people that are still alive that are our age.
Chuck (03:55):
We got a good guest again today. We've got another board member. Today is our guest. Our guest today is Jim Houston. He is our director of non captive labs and he's with the Cross Calibration Services. He is the director of quality and training, fairly new. He's not your typical meteorologist. He comes more from the testing side. So one thing that Jim does bring to Napt is the different perspective, which is what we really, when we got the new board designed, we really wanted a wire perspective. We didn't want just unquote the meteorologist, and that's what Jim brings to the table is that,
Howie (04:37):
Yeah. Now, if you would take a second to talk about captive versus non captive labs and what that difference is for the audience There is not familiar with that.
Chuck (04:46):
A captive lab is one that has a single mission like a 3M lab. They only provide calibration services for in-house activity where a non captive lab would be something like what you represent. They have most of your labs are what we call, I call the third party Cal lab, and they third parties. Another interesting term we should explore someday
Howie (05:09):
It is,
Chuck (05:10):
But the non captive provides services outside of their arena.
Howie (05:15):
Right. Commercial services.
Chuck (05:16):
Yeah, commercial services. So I worked in both, obviously when I were in the Army, the army was captive. We only service the army, that kind of thing.
Howie (05:27):
Air Force, that was at Lockheed Martin, right? That was an internal lab.
Chuck (05:31):
Right, exactly. So we had that going for us. So you and I are lucky. We've seen both sides of the houses and we've been in the big corporations, small corporations, and
Howie (05:44):
Actually Transcat is the only non captive lab I've worked for, and that's 24 years of my career so far.
Chuck (05:50):
Speaking of Mr. Non captive director, Jim, welcome.
Jim Houston (05:54):
Hey, Jim. Hi there. How are you guys today?
Chuck (05:57):
Good, good. Welcome to the podcast. This is Mr. Jim Houston. He is the director of quality and training at Cross Calibration Services. We're very happy to have you with us. We were just kind of chatting back and forth about the difference between a captive and a non captive, and we also started to touch base on the fact that you're not the typical metrology calibration type person. So I'd really like to just start out by having you tell us exactly what you do at Cross as the director of calibration and director of quality and training.
Jim Houston (06:38):
Well, basically the short answer I give folks is that I feel like the captain of the All-Star team. I've got a great team that works with me, and we're responsible for basically administering the quality system across all of our branches, as well as supporting any training needs, technical, administrative, whatever's needed there. So the folks on my team have years of experience. They're folks that have cut their teeth within the company and proven their stripes. It's great to work with them. That's awesome. Good to have.
Chuck (07:17):
I'm curious, before we get down, the next question is, are you taking after Howard, because the last time that I saw you, Jim, you did not have this beard. So are you and Howard got some sort of little contest going on and who can grow the best goatee or what's going on here?
Jim Houston (07:35):
It's not about competition, but I'm just, it's winter time.
Chuck (07:41):
I just shaved this morning for the podcast. I always shave only on the podcast days, so I'm freshly shaving.
Howie (07:47):
This is remnants of No Shave November.
Jim Houston (07:50):
Yeah, check back with me next month and I'll be cleaned up because it'll be birthday. I noticed
Howie (07:55):
That on one of our business calls this morning with Transcat operations leadership meeting, it was, I don't know, seven or eight people on there, 10 people, whatever. Not a single one was cleanly shaved. Right. It's just that time of year
Jim Houston (08:07):
You can get away with it, so why not?
Howie (08:09):
Yeah.
Chuck (08:09):
Well, it looks good, Jim. It looks good. You and Howard look a lot alike except for you've got hair on the top of your head. Howard's got this shiny spot that is getting a little bit, unfortunately,
Howie (08:20):
I'm a hundred years older.
Chuck (08:22):
Well, it's getting more noticeable every podcast, but we're not going to go there. So Jim, you also, like I mentioned, you come from the inspection side of the house. You got your Bachelor of Science in mechanical engineering from Penn State, and then after that you actually went to work on the campus of NIST as well. Is that correct?
Jim Houston (08:40):
I sure did. I sure. I came out of school looking for a job, didn't have a lot of relevant experience. Mechanical engineering was kind of a far cry, answer an ad in the paper. I needed work, and that job, like you said, was located at NIST in Gaithersburg. It was a fabulous opportunity to go about the country inspecting construction material test labs. That was basically state, DOT labs, refineries, hot mix, asphalt plants, that kind of crowd. A young guy went with a per diem check and several weeks on road.
Chuck (09:18):
So you were just firstly married back then, or were you married at all? I
Jim Houston (09:21):
Wasn't even married yet. I was dating my wife at the time, but we weren't made, weren't married, no kids, no mortgage. The
Howie (09:30):
World was your oyster at the time.
Chuck (09:32):
Yeah, yeah. It makes it easy to travel without those responsibilities back home. You mentioned in other conversations we had that you actually were housed in the same facility as the Million Pound Force machine. Yep. Did you know any of those folks over there at that? Because that particular lab, did you meet those guys?
Jim Houston (09:51):
Yeah, Kevin Chestnut Wood, I don't know if you're familiar with him. He does a lot with Napping Load sales works in that group. I've known him since day. I started there pretty much, and still keep in touch with him here and there.
Chuck (10:06):
No, I knew the other thing, the other directors over there back in the day, again, I don't want to bore us, but real briefly, I was given the opportunity to learn how to make force measurements by MR. Over there at the lab. We're going back to many, many years ago back actually when Mr. Seaford was not even in charge of the lab. So I've got a little bit of familiarity with that physical building as well, and actually that machine, I know it very well, learned exactly it inside and out how it operated and was able to run tests on load cells at the town. So really fortunate to do that.
Jim Houston (10:49):
While I was there in that building, we moved offices around campus. We were guests on campus, so wherever there was Space Force and that's where we went. But while we were officed in that building, they were actually doing failure tests on load bearing structures for oil rigs. So every now and then, the whole building would just shutter and they blew out another bearing. So it was a neat place to work, for sure. Great campus.
Howie (11:17):
So a couple of things that you had mentioned, a great white fire investigation and of course nine 11 World Trade Center. Want to talk a little bit about that?
Jim Houston (11:27):
Yeah, like you said, we moved around a whole bunch. The group that we officially rolled up underneath was the Building and Fire Research Laboratory. So basically they were the National Transportation Safety Board for any kind of structural failures. So when that fire broke out at the Great White Concert, those were the guys that went up there and investigated and tried to make recommendations for building codes. Likewise, whenever the World Trade Center was attacked and collapsed, it was guys from that group that did the evaluations, looked at the analyzed the building and the failure structures. They actually had housed some girders on campus out behind our building for a while, which was kind of eerie to walk around and see the blue and gray paint still on the girders,
Howie (12:15):
Of course. So we do work with Underwriters Laboratories among other testing agencies, testing companies, and in Northbrook, Illinois, they have an entire area set of buildings that are dedicated to fire research and how things burn for part of their testing. So I'm sure that's tied into what these investigators were doing and how they make measurements on that and determine what root cause was.
Jim Houston (12:42):
Yeah. Yep. Yep.
Howie (12:44):
Interesting.
Jim Houston (12:45):
Yeah. One of the videos, I think they still put it out every year, is they have a burn lab on campus where they would set up a living room with a Christmas tree and spark that and film it, and it's just eerie to watch the entire
Howie (12:58):
Oh, so
Chuck (12:58):
Quick
Jim Houston (12:59):
For lack of better go up in flames. So it happens quick.
Chuck (13:04):
You're the director of Qua Tree, we know that. Yes. And I have one opinion about accreditation, and Howard has a different, so share with us the importance of accreditation and what it means at Cross. We're really curious about how you personally feel about accreditation.
Jim Houston (13:25):
Well, my personal opinion on it as I've made my entire career of it, so I've had plenty of Kool-Aid to drink. Again, that job coming out of college, doing laboratory assessments, that's what we were looking at. We were looking at quality systems, training records, proficiency testing. We were making accreditation decisions. So my opinion of it is like most things in life, you get out of it what you put into it. I've known companies that have used it simply as a marketing tool, and all they do is gripe about the expense and the effort here at Cross. From very early on, the decision was made that we were going to embrace the spirit of it, and this goes long before my time here at Cross, but the approach was taken like, okay, let's document what we're doing and then let's stick to what we've documented, say what you do, do what you say, that kind of thing. Over the years, I mean, I've seen it be a successful tool for us. Time and time again, we've had labs where we've had manager turnover and some key personnel turnover, and because of the processes we've defined and that we have in place, new folks are able to step into those roles and come up to speed relatively quickly. So I'm a
Chuck (14:48):
Believer because NBT sponsors this podcast. You guys are huge people that do a lot of enrollments with NAPT. We are kind of like a single contractor almost with you guys for proficiency testing. So we're very intimate with Cross, and obviously we have this relationship as well. And that brings you to the board is because we want your expertise on the board of directors, which leads into the next question is what do you want to accomplish as a board member with NAPT? We really want to start, when I say we other board members want to start pressuring you to seeing what you want to have done at the board level.
Jim Houston (15:34):
Yeah. I really didn't come into this role with an agenda. I came into this role, more of the opinion of it was an opportunity to serve, an opportunity to kind of see what the industry is doing outside of cross. It's really easy to live inside your box and not have an appreciation for some of the things that are going on around you. There are some just amazing folks on the board of directors. You guys put a fine team together. When we were able to get together back in November, it was one of those moments where I kind of sat there and asked myself, what the heck am I doing here?
Howie (16:10):
Nope. You're among those elite that we decided this is what the team needs to be to have that good team, like the team you talked about at Cross, right? Yep. Need to have that good team to lead NAPT further.
Jim Houston (16:24):
Yeah. The one thing I do, having a chance to be with the team a little bit and sit through a few meetings, I do think I bring a little different perspective just because of the non captive labs. I mean, there's a very different approach to business. We're out there, we've got to earn it every day, and just because you get the purchase order doesn't mean you quit earning that business. That's right. So I think it's a different kind of perspective, especially given the relationship that some of the other board of directors have with their businesses. It's more about the internal customer.
Howie (17:04):
I was noticing talking about some of the committees. You've been on a STM committee for Road and Paving Materials is what I was thinking of. What was your involvement there?
Jim Houston (17:20):
That was basically standards development, being involved with subcommittees ballots. I think I was even vice chair on a couple before my career took a different trajectory.
Howie (17:34):
So I did viscosity measurements when I was at Kennedy Space Center, and when I did some of that research and learning viscosity, I'd never really had much training on it, and I was going through my engineering program at the time at UCF, but I did some research on that and found that a lot of the need for viscosity measurements, especially the heavier viscosities, had to do with road materials asphalt, surprisingly, and some of the standards, the standard reference materials for that really thick gummy stuff to put it in scientific terms. But yeah, so I was curious to see that on there because I had worked with that and calibrating different types of typically paddle TERs, zon cup type of things. So I was curious if you said that you were part of that development for the standards documents?
Jim Houston (18:30):
Yeah, the A STM process is a great one. They bring in folks from the kind of both sides, the users and the producer side. They keep their committees in balance. Everybody has a voice. If you object to something on the ballot, the committee then has to get together and determine whether or not that's a good opinion or a bad opinion, but they need to address it.
Howie (18:57):
Is it a very large group for the committee?
Jim Houston (19:01):
I would like to say it's a large group, but I only had that one committee, default committee to
Howie (19:08):
Reference. I'm referencing it to the healthcare committee through NCSL, and we have a large number of members, but the committee, the active committee members that are making the changes to RP six or whatever to the documents is typically 10, 12, 15 people. I don't know how that compares to astn.
Jim Houston (19:31):
The ASTMD four definitely had far more involvement than that. The various subcommittees maybe had, depending on what standards they had jurisdiction over, some of 'em were smaller groups, but some of 'em were, you might have a room full of 30 people.
Howie (19:47):
Yeah, I would expect it to be larger because you're representing now industry that's using these in their applications,
Chuck (19:57):
Which goes to our point is that we're mostly deal with a lot of people that I'm dealt with for the last 30 years has been the calibration side, but clearly, here's another side of metrology where we talked about how widespread metrology really is. And the truth of the matter is it affects literally everything we do in our life constantly all day long. We're constantly measuring everything. And so it's nice.
Jim Houston (20:26):
There's a phrase out of the industrial scale world, if it's been made, it's been weighed and probably more than once. So when you come into this world, they weigh you. When you leave this world, they weigh you. I mean, you go to the doctor, they're measuring you. Measurement is prolific.
Chuck (20:42):
Did you see that film by chance? There was about a 10 minute film that was made, I believe, by a European group, some sort of professional society. Did either of you guys see that film by chance, a short film? No. It's really neat film because it shows this young lady that is going down the road and she gets a flat tire, and so it goes through all she goes through about she didn't have enough gas and this kind of thing, and so she got the tire fixed and how much went into the pressure of the tire? And then she went down the road a little bit more and she went out of gas because the gas gauge wasn't working correctly. And so it was like a 15 minute thing about all the measurements that are done just to go to get her goal was to go to the store and get a loaf of bread, a gallon of milk and some butter. That was what she would plan to do, but just to do that little itty bitty task, how much measurements when they fail,
Howie (21:40):
Reliant on all these other things that you're taking for granted. Right?
Chuck (21:43):
Yeah. It's a great little film that I found very entertaining, and people that don't realize that how much petrology affects their life, they should see that film.
Jim Houston (21:54):
Yeah,
Howie (21:55):
We should find, that's one
Jim Houston (21:56):
Thing about being a non captive lab is that makes total sense to me because those are all of our customers. The people making tires, the people making bread, the people weighing out a gallon, those are our customers and they're across a wide variety of industries, and it's real easy to take for granted.
Howie (22:14):
You talk about being locked into your own world that you're working in and not necessarily tying it to everything else. So we calibrate weights, for example, for state weights and measures of different states. This is when I lived in Rochester and we were out for lunch, had to get some gas right before we went to the restaurant, and sure enough, who's there state weights and measures, calibrating the gas pumps. It was really cool. So we're like, Hey, we got to talk to these guys. So we go up and strike up a conversation belt. They got the approver, the jar prover out there for measuring the five gallons of gas,
(22:54)
And they see our trans get on our shirts. Oh, you guys calibrate our weights. So they knew who we were, and there's just the whole conversation about, Hey, how often are these pumps out of whatever the tolerances are, they're acceptable. And they said, well, just matter of fact, a couple of weeks ago, we had a problem with one of the large warehouse stores in the area where there were a number of complaints from patrons saying, Hey, we're not getting the gas we think we should be getting. So it's noticeable to them. That's not good because typically the pumps are 0.01 gallons resolution, so they must be off pretty far for that to happen. Well, he said when they actually calibrated the pumps, they were actually in favor of the customer, not the other way around. So they were noticing something, but they were thinking they were ripped off. Anyway, we incorporated into our training with our salespeople for helping them understand metrology. A lot of the salespeople in most companies, most non captive labs are not meteorologists. So this helps them to tie what we're doing in the calibration world to what you see every day. It's pretty interesting. All right. I'll start with my typical forum question for all of our guests. What is the most memorable metrology moment so far in your career?
Jim Houston (24:15):
I think what jumps to mind is not necessarily a moment, but kind of a string of moments for lack of better. Like we mentioned earlier, I was working at NIST in the same building as the million pound stack. Fast forward, I get into the industrial scale world and we put together a training regimen for our new people, and it includes a fellow who's been all over the industry, retired. He used to work at the National Bureau of Standards when NIST was still downtown dc.
(24:48)
Worked for Mettler Toledo, worked at a couple of state agencies. But anyways, him and I get to chat, and then he mentions that there was a truck scale in the building where the million pound stack is. I'm kind of thinking to myself who he, I don't remember any truck scales. We'll, again, flash forward and we're doing some training here at Cross and I come across a video. They're refurbishing the million pound stack. So I start watching this video and sure enough, the discs, I think they're 50,000 pound discs weights that are on this stack to calibrate those are on a mechanical truck scale that they use like a big giant balance pretty much. And kind of the ironic thing in my mind is that the only reason NIST's campuses in Gaithersburg is because of that million pound stack. Because Backdooring the space race on the Saturn Rockets, they needed to be able to test the kind of power that was coming out of those rockets. So basically we made it to the moon with a mechanical truck scale. That's kind of just a weird way this industry works.
Howie (25:53):
That is pretty cool.
Chuck (25:54):
Yeah, that's a great story.
Howie (25:56):
Well,
Chuck (25:57):
I thought your story would be that being invited with Nat, I thought would be your greatest moment in metrology. Well, that's obvious
Howie (26:04):
Though. The only person, no guests so far has said that's their forum moment
Chuck (26:09):
One, no one yet. So well, let's get a little bit more personal. So when you are out on about not working, what is it that you and your family like to go do?
Jim Houston (26:23):
We're a pretty quiet bunch. We like the outdoors camping. We took a road trip out to Yellowstone in the midst of Covid a few years back before my oldest graduated high school. So
Howie (26:34):
Yeah, we made our first trip a couple of years ago. So go ahead. That's beautiful place.
Jim Houston (26:39):
It is, absolutely. If I ever win the big ticket and you guys are looking for 'em, you look up in that direction,
Chuck (26:48):
You're not going to tell us that you won the big ticket and share it with us.
Jim Houston (26:53):
Boy, it would be fun to keep showing up at work knowing that you got that money in the bank, wouldn't it? It might be a little different
Chuck (27:00):
Is a nonprofit. You could make a huge donation and just write it off.
Jim Houston (27:04):
I could. I could. I'll keep you in mind. I'm always open
Howie (27:07):
To donations.
Chuck (27:08):
I appreciate that.
Howie (27:10):
I love that you made a comment that you like to lead a boring life. I do too. We work towards a no drama life.
Chuck (27:16):
Oh,
Howie (27:17):
Jesus. It is just heaven to be bored to death. Right. Chuck
Chuck (27:22):
Jim, I believe very quiet so far. I've only known him for about nine months now. Every time I've met him, he's very reserved, very straightforward to the point. Very, very, very this, very that. You on the other hand, quiet, you go out to dinner every single night of the week. You're constantly traveling. You're traveling, what, 30 weeks
Howie (27:46):
At the year? Can't say no about that. We're actually going out tonight.
Chuck (27:51):
So where is this quiet part? I mean, I can't,
Howie (27:57):
Lemme rephrase. I appreciate the boring life that you lead. There you go. You're purposely and by design lead, I try to sway my life that direction.
Jim Houston (28:09):
I figure if you're in quality and if you're in metrology, you really just don't want people talking about you because usually it's something's wrong.
Howie (28:17):
Yeah, well, if I want to bore the audience, I just start talking about work and shut them
Jim Houston (28:23):
Up. Well you mean the weather? No, not the weather
Howie (28:30):
Saw. I follow a couple of what I'm going to say meteorologists, that's what I call them. And this one meteorologist on Instagram posted its National Weather Person's Day. And I'm thinking, I don't even think it was on Instagram, maybe it was on LinkedIn. So my response was, why not meteorologist? Why are we switching the name? Is there a difference? And I go, look that up. I haven't looked it up yet. I just saw it. What yesterday? Have you heard of that difference? National Weather Persons Day versus a Meteorologist?
Chuck (29:02):
No, I
Jim Houston (29:03):
Haven't. I
Howie (29:03):
Haven't either. So I don't know what that's all
Jim Houston (29:05):
About. It's the
Chuck (29:06):
Same thing. The
Jim Houston (29:06):
Weather persons better looking person in front of the camera
Howie (29:10):
Difference that could be have their official title
Chuck (29:15):
Maybe.
Jim Houston (29:15):
Yeah.
Chuck (29:17):
Moving forward. So you're very quiet, you and your wife travel a little bit. That's what you like to do.
Jim Houston (29:25):
Yeah, we got three kids. Two are in college. So just like I said, just girls, when you've got girls, you want things to be quiet, right?
Howie (29:38):
Yeah. Hopefully they're on scholarships.
Jim Houston (29:41):
Yep. Yep. One is and one's about to graduate.
Chuck (29:46):
Well, let's get back to work for a quick minute then before we continue down this path. So one of the questions that I wanted to ask earlier that I never really got to is what is your plans? I dunno if you can share with us what cross plan is, but what is your plan in serving the metrology community? Now everybody that's around knows that Cross has acquired a lot of labs over the last few years. You become what I would classify as a major player in the non captive business. So you're providing a lot of third party type calibrations to the metrology community. What are you guys' plans? Are you planning to continue to expand? Are you comfortable where you're at? Anything you can share with us?
Jim Houston (30:27):
Yeah, I guess a little bit more about Cross, we're more than just the metrology side of the house. We're actually made up of several groups. Precision Measurement Group is the group that I'm in. We've also got a mobile systems integration group that does a lot with electrifying vehicles and putting hydraulic packages on vehicles. We've got a group, an automation group. They're kind of the pick up the box, move the box, set the box down kind of folks. We've got a hose and fittings group that does retail custom hoses for if you're out there running a bobcat and all of a sudden you blow a hose, you can come in and we'd help you out there. And then we've got a process solutions group that deals with just that more process related stuff, a lot of flow control instrument panels, those kinds of things. So we're a fairly diverse group. The precision measurement is probably the most recent one to the family. So we kind of diversified cross a little bit from engineering and box in box out to add the service element.
Howie (31:31):
So was that there prior to the J King acquisition or was that because of the J King?
Jim Houston (31:37):
The precision measurement J King, our tagline was that we were precision measurement professionals. That's where the precision measurement kind of flowed into the cross acquisition.
Howie (31:47):
So that might be the case. Yeah.
Jim Houston (31:49):
Yep. Yeah, J King, we were pretty much just, we had service and then we had an engineering group and then sales. So kept things pretty simple.
Chuck (31:59):
I'm just curious how many employees through the cross organization, not the cross calibration service, because you said that's a smaller identity within the bigger identity.
Jim Houston (32:09):
Yeah. I don't know the exact head count now, but I think we're somewhere in the neighborhood of 600 associates and we're an employee owned company, so that's kind of an interesting cultural shift. It's for several years of working for the man now, whenever the company does well, we all get a little statement at the end of the year that says we're all going to be rich. So
Chuck (32:32):
Lovely.
Jim Houston (32:33):
Lovely. That's
Howie (32:34):
Great. All right. In your position, the training part of your role, especially if you're acquiring other companies in calibration or whatever else, you're providing training for the calibration piece or more than that, is it for the other segments?
Jim Houston (32:52):
It's more than that. We've got four guys on the staff who are focused strictly on the technical, the bench training. So in terms of an acquisition or a new employee, those would be the guys that are going out there qualifying the technician. If it's somebody who comes in with prior experience, we just want to make sure they're using our processes, using our procedures, and it's more of a competency evaluation than a training aspect. We also have a couple folks on staff who go out and support our service coordinators. The way we're structured, our service coordinators is that person that answers the phone when a customer calls in, directs all the traffic, manages all the invoicing, does a little bit of quoting, a little bit of this, a little bit of that. So very critical role for us. So we've got a couple guys who travel around supporting them whenever a new coordinator comes on board or
Howie (33:48):
So when it comes to the accreditation process and measurement uncertainties, when you're reporting that for the calibration values, you're training your personnel on how to build uncertainty budgets and things like that? Or is there somebody in charge of that overall?
Jim Houston (34:07):
Yeah, generally speaking, our uncertainty budgets are centralized for lack of better. The folks on our team, the same guys who are doing the training, they're the ones that are managing the budgets, looking how we can improve things, make sure we're current, all that good stuff as far as reporting to accreditation body. But we do have working budgets that those guys then build so that the individual technicians out there, whatever the circumstances might be, can kind of update some of the factors and then run through the math instead of recreating it from scratch.
Howie (34:39):
So one of the things that we found a lot of people that are new to uncertainty budgets or even those that have been doing it a while, kind of follow the standard process. And one of the things that we do is a measurement of certainty training. And part of that is a little bit of basic on probability and statistics and what the distribution types are. And so I found something that's actually pretty helpful. So this is a decision tree, and it's helpful because you can start without having to look at all these graphs and get all keyed up on, oh my gosh, this is a lot of math. It's just a decision tree that says, look, do you have individual discrete points or is everything continuous? And it just breaks down into the different distribution types. And in the end, when you're building uncertainty budgets, you're typically using one or two, maybe three different type of distribution types.
(35:30)
So you don't have to get overly complicated. So then we break it into the next step of saying, okay, typically you're going to have a normal distribution curve. That's going to be the thing you're going to use the most when you have values that have been statistically derived, also known as a Gaussian distribution. And then you might see a rectangular distribution. That's pretty common, especially for manufacturer specs where you have an equal probability of it being anywhere within the range of the tolerances. And that's also known as a uniform distribution. And then occasionally you'll see a triangular what's known as a chi-square that's not as common. Maybe more of the meteorologists are going to get into these applications, but there is, we've noticed a phenomenon that occurs typically once a year. It's strange how that happens over time. And that distribution is typically seen around October timeframe, and that's done as the paranormal distribution had to go all also known as the Ian distribution.
Jim Houston (36:40):
We'll be here all week. Remember to tip your waitress.
Chuck (36:42):
Yeah, exactly. Well, I now have to give my 2 cents on uncertainty. Granted now I feel that with anything that's left to interpretation, it's a problem. And we probably should talk about risk more than uncertainty because that seems to be the more flavor of the month is the risk analysis that we now have to perform. But I've had a problem with uncertainty for the longest time, and that is that we're expecting the non-trained people to make decisions based on what the uncertainty of the measurement is and what level do we train people on how to recognize what the uncertainty of the measurement is. That's a question that changes from organization to organization. You have some organizations that have nothing to do, their technicians have nothing to do with the uncertainty. All they do is press buttons and make measurements, and then there's an engineer down the road makes the determination whether it's pass fails or whatever the case may be. But we're continuing down this road where we're introducing these concepts, but we're not training people to make informed decisions. And I have a real problem with that and I don't have the answer, thank God, because I'm the third party Cali business anymore.
Howie (37:54):
But well, the problem that poses whether you're captive or non captive lab, if you don't prepare your uncertainty budget correctly and you miss what's known as a key parameter, right, a key element or component, your uncertainties are going to be incorrect. If you do that, you could effectively, you could allow a probability of false acceptance to occur, calling it intolerance when it shouldn't be. So that's a problem.
Chuck (38:24):
That's not my point though, is you got the technician who may or may not understand what the uncertainty budget is, and far too often, and again, it's not the norm, it happens too often where we overanalyze the uncertainty. I know people who are going to listen to this podcast and they're going to come back and say, no, you don't analyze it enough. Well, I'm going to say you're wrong. It's one thing I miss about the old 17 and 25. It gave us guidance, a lot more guidance than the current 25 does. If you include those five parameters, those five basic parameters in uncertainty, 90% of the time, that's good enough for you should
Howie (39:04):
Be
Chuck (39:04):
Fine. Yeah,
Howie (39:06):
That's kind of what I'm talking about here.
Chuck (39:08):
I'm saying we're getting to a point. Too many people are making uncertainty budgets where they're requiring you to know what a nanometer is for something. When you're calibrating a Cali for, you don't need to know what affects
Howie (39:19):
Whether you understate the uncertainty or overstate the uncertainty. Right. And you're right. If you're going too far, there's a point or no return effect.
Chuck (39:27):
There's no value in it.
Howie (39:28):
Yeah.
Chuck (39:32):
Now you got me going on that. So let's talk about risk instead because that's the new
Jim Houston (39:36):
Player of the market. Just a final thought for you. Sometimes we get stuck in this. We have to prove we considered something that really doesn't make any contribution to the bottom line because we're rounding things up. Any case too significant figures, it becomes more of an academic exercise than any true value. To your point,
Howie (39:54):
It's about putting it in perspective to understand when enough is enough, right? So you don't have analysis paralysis,
Chuck (40:00):
But then admit that and then go on. Just let it go. Don't require every organization to make a finite measurement of uncertainty to the 12th place when you're making a measurement to the fifth place. That's the problem I have. You're making a measurement to say 50 millions and you're requiring something to take into account everything that's one micro inch or less. That's what I call ridiculous analysis.
Howie (40:23):
Okay,
Chuck (40:25):
Let's move away from that because I guarantee let's
Howie (40:26):
Table that for the moment
Chuck (40:28):
That people are going to call me tomorrow when they hear this podcast and they're going to go, Ellis, you don't know what the F you're talking about. But anyways, let's talk about risk instead. What are you guys doing for risk analysis at Cross? Are you guys, are you getting wrapped up in this whole controversy that we started 25 years ago with uncertainty and now we got to take into account risk?
Jim Houston (40:47):
I mean, risk is definitely something we have to take into account and how we manage it and all that good stuff. 17 out of 25, to your point earlier, the latest version of it is just pumped full of risk. And there's a lot of things that we're pillars for lack of better that aren't there or aren't as clearly there as they used to be. So I mean, we're still looking for different ways that we can incorporate risk analysis into our existing processes to try and make them more valuable.
Chuck (41:15):
I think we've got the same problem we had 25 years ago when we first started doing uncertainty analysis. No one could spell uncertainty, let alone do an analysis, and now because we have even more interpretation with risk than we ever had with uncertainty, I think it's going to be a big bucket of worms that's going to cause a lot of, and I think that down the road you're going to have tightened up reviews what the requirements for uncertainty, you're going to have requirements what has to be considered documented. You have to consider X, Y, Z, not what you feel you have to consider because it's all interpretive and anytime you interpret something, I have a problem with that. I really do.
Jim Houston (41:52):
The upside though is it does kind of give you a systematic way about setting priorities. So if something's not likely to happen and has low impact to the company, well move on.
Chuck (42:05):
Right.
Jim Houston (42:05):
Aren't better to do with yourself.
Chuck (42:07):
Exactly. I agree a hundred percent. Yeah, so well, that's great. So Howard, we're getting down to, we've got just a few minutes left in our time. We always give you Jim a chance to, if you want to ask us an embarrassing question, you can either, I mean a lot of our guests pass on it, but if you want to ask us,
Howie (42:29):
You can ask him.
Jim Houston (42:34):
Go ahead. I'll ask Kard Howard, what's the best story Chuck would tell about you?
Howie (42:40):
It's embarrassing. He likes to laugh at this. So years ago we went to Hawaii. We took my wife and myself and Chuck and his lovely wife, TR and their young child baby almost, right, Jayden. It was what, 18 months old?
Chuck (42:58):
Yeah, just over one year.
Howie (42:59):
Just over a year. So we wanted to go, we were at a beautiful resort and you walk a little way as you get to the shore and we wanted to go snorkeling. So we take our snorkeling gear and the fins and everything else. We get out there and I sit down in the shallow water to put my fins on thinking it's shallow water, it's not shallow water. That tide is coming in and pulling out and coming in and pulling out, and I'm rolling all over the place trying to get my friends on. My wife is laughing her butt out. Chuck laughs. And then next thing you know, he's doing the same thing. She had a heyday just watching us rolling all over the place.
Chuck (43:38):
Yeah, that was, we would've been on that, what do you call America's Funniest Videos? Whatever it is. You
Howie (43:43):
Probably should have recorded that.
Chuck (43:45):
Oh my god. If Janet would've recorded that, I guarantee you we would've. The million dollar price. It was so funny. The reason I started rolling in the water as well, because I lost myself. I was laughing so hard because Holly kept struggling to put those damn flippers on.
Howie (44:04):
It looks so peaceful, but when you get in there, that thing will not you all over the place. Oh my
Chuck (44:09):
God. Crazy. Were you convinced you were going to show 'em how to do it? Well, I mean, once I started falling in, I knew that I had to get those slippers on.
Howie (44:17):
Neither one of us snorkeled that day. We went back to the room and drank three bottles of wine.
Chuck (44:27):
Well, we went to the patio and sat on the patio and drank the wine, and we watched the other people do the snorkeling that day. I would have to admit that's one of the many Embarra moments. Many. But we have Jim back. We'll ask stories
Howie (44:44):
For another day.
Chuck (44:46):
I have enough Jim, I have enough ammunition on him. This is why he does the podcast for us. I convinced him to do this podcast because I have all I know where all the bones are buried. He can't say no to me because he knows that I'll probably write a book about all the stuff I have on him.
Howie (45:03):
I can't believe I willfully gave that story,
Chuck (45:07):
But
Howie (45:07):
It was because it's Jim.
Chuck (45:09):
Yeah,
Howie (45:10):
I respect Jim.
Chuck (45:12):
It's a heck of a story for sure. Any closing thoughts, comments, Jim, that you want to make?
Jim Houston (45:17):
I think one of the things, and this maybe gets a little bit preachy, but I think you'll probably clap when I'm done, is I think people don't value proficiency testing nearly enough. You look, I'd say most companies highly value the calibration of their standards. They'll send them off wherever they can pay whatever dollar they have to, they pay real close attention to that part of their program. But when it comes to probably the larger chunk of where they may make an error, the process is that they're deploying on the bench and how they stack up against the rest of the world. PTs really allow you to do that and allow you to focus in on how well you're doing. So it's kind of like calibrating your process and you wouldn't do that inside the walls of your own facility. So yeah,
Chuck (46:07):
You're right. I do clap because I personally believe there's no better tool than participation in an appropriate proficiency test that proves your technical competence. I believe that. And believe it or not, I can prove that statistically as well. So yes, I absolutely, I applaud your little pitch for proficiency testing. And I know that, if you don't mind me saying you guys do a ton of proficiency testing, you guys do more than you're required because you can clearly tell that you embrace that fact that you get better by doing proficiency testing. And what the funny thing is, Jim, is companies like yourself that truly believe in proficiency testing. This is the change where we've had that understand what it brings to the table will do more than what's required by unquote their accreditation body. And you can always tell companies that really emphasized the quality of their technician, making sure they're competent, their processes are in check, they do proficiency testing. There's
Jim Houston (47:06):
A big difference between being required to do something and finding value in what you're doing. Right?
Howie (47:10):
Yeah, there is.
Jim Houston (47:12):
Yeah,
Howie (47:12):
That was an outstanding answer to that. I applaud. And that I think you stole your byline.
Chuck (47:20):
Yeah, we actually, Jim, we normally close with something to that. So Howard's absolutely correct. He stole my byline. We normally say that we'd like to thank our sponsor, Nat, please remember, participation in proficiency testing is still the only true way you can prove your technical competence. So do it with Nat or do it internally, but do it. So we say that that's our byline. So you stole it from me today. So that
Howie (47:45):
Was good though.
Chuck (47:46):
Yeah, it was great. So thanks for being part of the podcast. We look forward to obviously being on the board. We're going to start asking more of you and we're looking forward to your expertise that you bring as obviously someone that knows quality inside and out, and we're looking forward to getting you more comfortable with the board as well. So with that, we're going to let the music take us out. And again, Howard, thank you. Look forward to our next one.
Howie (48:15):
How easy up
Chuck (48:16):
Jim. Again, I can't thank you enough and we look forward to talking to you soon.
Jim Houston (48:21):
Alright, thank you
Chuck (48:22):
Guys. Alright, take care guys.