The vendor's dilemma is twofold. He must provide a good product while generating sales. Ideally, he receives follow-up sale and service calls for training, service, parts and so forth for each customer. When the client receives value and satisfaction from the equipment, the vendor's interest is best served when a product has a finite life. His best situation is technical, functional, or economic obsolescence before the end of useful facility life occurs. The client retires the product in-service to buy another unless the vendor can convince him to upgrade to something better.

Vendors are also repositories for product development knowledge. In the course of their work, they must identify, understand, and remove design, production, and operating impediments that cause failures. They generally retain this information conveying it selectively to users. Unfortunately, vendors can't provide complete failure data to equipment owner/operators nor fully disclose product development and applications, as they must protect competitive positions. They need to exercise discretion in the event of legal action. In addition, plant technical staff must understand and translate the operating data they receive from the vendor. Generally, users don't need or require details about the product. They might be intimidated by too much information weak points and total costs or might comparison shop, or be steered towards a competitor. Lastly and most important vendors don't have "complete" information on actual in-service failures and aging performance. They cannot possibly understand all conceivable environmental and aging factors, applications, and uses imposed by the users and their environments.

So, our dilemma...