Early in my career, I had the opportunity to teach woodworking. For five years at North Carolina State University, I served as both a student and a faculty member within the University Student Center. I arrived with extensive knowledge of woodworking, and during my first week, I met two individuals who recognized my aptitude and experience, promptly offering me a position managing the workshop. This role soon evolved into assisting with classes and eventually becoming an instructor.
My initial understanding of woodworking was primarily shaped by my father, an accomplished woodworker and craftsman, who inherited his skills from his cabinetmaker father. Thus, my expertise stemmed not from traditional classroom education, but from the apprenticeship model, which provided me with a solid foundation in both skill and knowledge. When I began teaching my first class, I collaborated with a degree-holding educator—a physics teacher from Millbrook High School—who guided me in developing a syllabus and contributed valuable insights that complemented my hands-on training.
My most meaningful growth in woodworking came from my students. Some arrived with no knowledge of the craft, others brought solid experience, and many hoped to refine their abilities through formal lessons. Every class pushed me to deepen what I knew—usually in a supportive, constructive manner, but sometimes by questioning me directly. These interactions broadened my understanding far beyond what I could have achieved alone. We frequently debated techniques, philosophies, and methods. Often, a student who had just watched Roy Underhill or similar shows would ask why he chose certain tools or approaches. More often than not, my answer was that he simply used what was at hand. Teaching woodworking expanded my expertise far more than my decade-long apprenticeship ever did, and it demanded that I both increase my knowledge and be ready to justify my perspectives.
How This Relates to Components and QC
I currently work as a component industry consultant, mainly teaching and coaching. My role over the last decade closely resembles my time at NCSU, especially the teaching challenges. The main difference is that my plant evaluation grades now carry weight, whereas at NCSU they didn’t affect students’ graduation or credit hours.
Recently, I faced a challenge with something I thought I understood. During a plant inspection, my client questioned my findings, and an expert reviewed my evaluation. It turned out I was mistaken. While there was a clear cause for my confusion, it doesn’t excuse the error—here’s why.
While inspecting lumber grades on a floor truss, I found the lumber grade stamp did not match the grade specified on the design. The drawing called out for M-30 lumber and the customer used MSR 2400 lumber. I remembered that M-24 is 2700 psi, M-25 is 2750, M-26 is 2800, and M-27 has an fb of 3000.
I interpolated and used this logic: if M-27 is 3000 psi, then M-30 has to be higher. My conclusion was that this client was using material that did not have the required properties.
Wrong! I failed to reference resources that would have supported (or changed) my decision. With a little more research, I would have checked the complete list of values. [For images, See PDF or View in Full Issue.]
As shown in the complete table, M-30 is actually 2050 psi. The development of the values is not linear, so my linear thinking was incorrect. My attempt at logical interpolation is not possible in this situation.
The Bottom Line
This incident reminded me how we are all continuing to learn each day—or at least we should be learning, especially from our mistakes. My four take-aways are these:
- Our industry presents us with many opportunities to teach and to learn, especially when we are challenged by clients, employees, or even customers.
- Each question you are asked should be answered with a solid argument.
- As we become creatures of habit, we may answer questions too quickly, and with answers that are less than accurate.
- We should always listen to both sides in an argument—it’s a way to learn and improve.
In the end, if we don’t learn from our mistakes, we’ll keep making them, and that benefits no one.
An ANSI/TPI 1 3rd Party Quality Assurance Authorized Agent covering the Southeastern United States, Glenn Traylor is an independent consultant with over four decades of experience in the structural building components industry. Glenn serves as a trainer-evaluator-auditor covering sales, design, PM, QA, customer service, and production elements of the truss industry. He also provides project management specifically pertaining to structural building components, including on-site inspections, expert witness and ANSI/TPI 1 compliance assessments. Glenn provides new plant and retrofit designs, equipment evaluations, ROI, capacity analysis, and CPM analysis.