201 CHAPTER 23 Particle Counting from a Market Perspective After evaluating all the available systems and approaches to particle counting, it should be apparent that the “perfect” system does not exist, and never will. There is never any way to be sure that one will make the “right” choice, as experience is the best teacher, but experience is only acquired well after the initial selection. It is helpful to examine the manufacturer’s perspective when evaluating particle counter systems. Certainly there are any number of reasons behind the various ways each company approaches the market, which would be impossible to even attempt to explain. However, human nature and the laws of economics being what they are, a few broad generalizations are possible. It is helpful to understand some of the dynamics involved in the current business climate, especially for those who have spent careers in the public sector, and have not worked in private business. The municipal market is quite unlike the industrial markets in which most of the particle counting companies have been involved. The long, drawn-out compet- itive bid process is much slower and more tedious than most industrial contracts. While all human endeavors involve some degree of politics, municipal contracts involve politics with a capital “P,” that is, on the governmental level. Decisions are often made with no regard for technical merit by bureaucrats who are only concerned with costs and budgets. New plants can take several years to complete from the time of initial specification, and the manufacturers must invest time and resources in these projects over several years, often to receive no return. Industrial projects are usually accomplished in a much shorter time span, with less political involvement, and the plant personnel are generally more technically adept. The highly competitive nature of private business places a premium on problem solving and process improvement, and once the importance of a particular technology is ascertained, it does not take long to implement. As municipalities are noncompetitive, there is less urgency to improve. Water quality is quite good in most places, and while lowering the cost of production a few percent would benefit the taxpayer or consumer, it is not a pressing concern. There is no great monetary incentive for investing in a particle counting system. L1306/frame/pt03 Page 201 Friday, June 23, 2000 2:16 PM © 2001 by CRC Press LLC 202 A PRACTICAL GUIDE TO PARTICLE COUNTING Market forces are still the driving factor behind the advances in particle counting technology, as in most technological development. Hiac Royco produced a complex and expensive particle counter in the early going, while Met One developed a simpler and lower-cost unit to compete with it in the hydraulics market. This cheaper, simpler approach had limited appeal in the hydraulics market, but was ideally suited for the less-sophisticated and more-price-driven municipal market. As Met One built up a substantial share of the drinking water market against the more expensive Hiac Royco product line, it had little incentive to improve its equipment. This allowed PMS and Chemtrac an opening into the market with systems designed to address some of the shortcomings of the existing equipment. It also allowed Hach to recover from its initial entry with Hiac Royco equipment and try an improved attempt with help from PMS. This has in turn forced Met One to improve its offering, and basically forced Hiac Royco and PMS out of direct involvement in the water treatment market. They have strongholds in other markets, but cannot compete at the price levels that have resulted from this competitive situation. The importance of competition in this area cannot be overstated. From the early 1990s Met One has been ideally situated in terms of staff and resources to lead the way in developing particle counting technology for the drinking water industry, but has only done so when forced by competitive realities. Chemtrac introduced several innovations, developed by a team of experienced engineers who had been formerly with Met One. Some were hired on a contract basis, and others left after the product was completed, so that none of the development team is still in place. As a result, little change can be expected from Chemtrac in the future. It would appear that future leadership of the particle counting market will be decided between Met One/Hach and Art Instruments/US Filter. Both have the market presence and technical expertise necessary. Chemtrac is a smaller firm that can comfortably exist on a smaller market share while keeping the bigger firms in line on pricing. IBR will continue to sell to the old Hiac Royco customer base, but is not likely to pose a bigger threat to the others. But, as the economic skeptics like to say, in the long run, we will all be dead. That and taxes are what we can be assured of. There is no way to know what the future holds for particle counting in drinking water treatment. Enough questions and problems still exist to allow for the possibility of a truly innovative entry that could revolutionize the industry. Unless, of course, firm regulations are established, which will likely end any new innovation in the industry. Competitive markets are what drive innovation, as should be obvious from observing the growth in that most unregulated of markets, the computer industry. Regulations provide the security of a fixed standard of measure. Once in place, the goal becomes to meet them with the smallest amount of cost, whether in terms of price or effort. People are motivated by incentives, and will follow the path of least resistance to achieve them. When the incentive path is changed from continual improvement to maintenance of a fixed standard, a whole new set of attitudes will be formed. The more positive and dynamic outlook produced by a climate of innovation and improvement becomes a negative and static one of trying not to fail to meet the fixed standard. Failure is punished more than success is rewarded, so the incentive comes to be the avoidance of failure, or even the appearance of failure, L1306/frame/pt03 Page 202 Friday, June 23, 2000 2:16 PM © 2001 by CRC Press LLC PARTICLE COUNTING FROM A MARKET PERSPECTIVE 203 more than striving for success. This attitude is prevalent in the water treatment industry, because of the predominance of regulations. It explains much of the hes- itancy about selecting a particle counting system, because no one wants to make a “bad” choice. It is safer to defend a choice because the neighboring plants have the same equipment, or the company has been around longer, than to defend it by virtue of its innovative features and performance. This attitude has become widely prevalent in private business as well, in large part due to the abundance of regulation in all spheres of life. Fear of failure super- sedes reward for success, and little incentive is given for those willing to risk failure. Human nature has always been such that outside people, be they competitors or consultants, are always trusted more than one’s own employees, no matter how well they have performed in the past. That “prophet is never accepted in his own town” is a well known and established truth. This goes a long way toward explaining why outside competition drives improvement. It is never a safe bet to assume the biggest will always be the best, and it will usually be the newest entry into the market that will push the older established firms to improve. Little consideration is given to customer requests for changes to products until the pinch is felt in the pocketbook. L1306/frame/pt03 Page 203 Friday, June 23, 2000 2:16 PM © 2001 by CRC Press LLC . 201 CHAPTER 23 Particle Counting from a Market Perspective After evaluating all the available systems and approaches to particle counting, it should be apparent that the “perfect”. LLC 202 A PRACTICAL GUIDE TO PARTICLE COUNTING Market forces are still the driving factor behind the advances in particle counting technology, as in most technological development. Hiac Royco. had limited appeal in the hydraulics market, but was ideally suited for the less-sophisticated and more-price-driven municipal market. As Met One built up a substantial share of the drinking water