jump to navigation

Measuring Cost of Quality August 29, 2016

Posted by Tim Rodgers in Operations, Process engineering, Quality, Supply chain.
Tags: , , , , , , ,
add a comment

I’ve always thought “cost of quality” was a great idea in principle. If you could take the costs associated with defects, field failures, returns, and warranty claims, and add the costs of inspection, testing, scrap, and rework, then you could get everyone’s attention.

Quality would no longer be some abstract “nice to have” thing, but a real expense category that could be monitored and managed. With an objective, quantitative model to view how much money is actually being spent because of poor quality and associated practices, you would be able to evaluate proposed improvement programs and measure their performance. You would have something concrete to discuss with design and production teams to compare with estimates of future sales and operating expenses, apples to apples. All of this would lead to informed, balanced, and better decisions.

It sounds great, but it’s a lot harder than it sounds. You may be measuring yields and defects and returns, but now you’ve got to measure costs.



Are You Looking For Root Cause, Or Someone to Blame? August 15, 2016

Posted by Tim Rodgers in Management & leadership, Operations, Process engineering, Quality.
Tags: , , , ,

When I worked as a quality manager in my first career I was often required to investigate quality failures to determine the cause. There were times when it was pretty easy to figure out, but in an uncontrolled business environment it can be hard to identify a simple dependent relationship between cause and effect. There are usually multiple contributing factors. Sometimes a small thing (the cause) can become a big thing when it’s overlooked (another cause).

Most of the other managers I worked with didn’t have much patience with the complexities of root cause analysis. They wanted a simple, actionable outcome: this is the cause, and if we eliminate this cause then this problem will never happen again (right?), so let’s eliminate the cause. The people who were impacted by this quality failure want answers, and they want to feel confident that the business has taken decisive and effective action. They don’t want to endure an extended period of uncertainty and exposure to risk while the business figures out what to do in order to prevent re-occurrence.


3D Printing and the Production Ramp August 8, 2016

Posted by Tim Rodgers in Process engineering, Product design, Quality, Supply chain.
Tags: , , , , , , ,
add a comment

Yes, 3D printing is great. Incredibly intricate designs that have been virtually impossible to fabricate using traditional subtractive or injection molding technology can now be realized. The range of plastics and metallic materials that can be printed continues to grow. The falling prices for commercial printers makes them economically feasible for a variety of applications, including rapid prototyping and on-demand manufacturing of replacement parts for field repairs. The technology will continue to disrupt existing business models and help develop new ones, and I’m following all of this with great interest.

I’m especially interested to see how 3D printing will change traditional manufacturing, particularly for mass production. It’s one thing to build a single product that meets design and performance specifications, but it’s a different challenge to consistently make the quantities of products that are required to satisfy a larger market over an extended period of time at a cost that enables a profit. At some point I expect that established manufacturers will adopt 3D printing as a replacement for current fabrication technologies such as injection molding for some applications, however there are still significant cost and throughput advantages with the older processes.

Here are a couple of considerations:

  • Will the prototype design created using 3D printing still work with the volume production plan? Or, will it have to be re-designed to meet the manufacturer’s requirements and capabilities? A change in the fabrication method means re-visiting the discussion about design for manufacturability.
  • Are the materials used for the 3D printed prototype the same as those that will be used in the final product? What does that mean for functional and reliability testing of the prototype? Are those results still meaningful?

Again, it’s going to be interesting to see how this space develops.

Measuring Service Quality August 1, 2016

Posted by Tim Rodgers in Operations, Quality.
Tags: , , , ,
add a comment

Product quality seems easy to measure. We just have to sit down with the people who will be using the product or the part or the subassembly and ask them what physical characteristics are important: dimensions and tolerances, chemical composition, electrical performance measurements, strength, weight, and the like. These are things we can then measure, either directly or through test results, on a representative sample from the production process. If we’ve defined the “fitness for use” characteristics correctly, based on what the customer tells us, then we can determine whether or not our processes can reliably produce products that meet those requirements.

Service quality is harder to measure. The trouble starts with defining the requirements. Who are the customers and what do they want? There may be a lot of them, possibly millions of them, with new ones every day. They each have their own set of unique expectations that might change from day to day. They may not be able to articulate their requirements, or at least not in a way that can be acted upon. Services are typically customized for individual customers, and there’s no standard level of performance. What’s acceptable to one customer may not be acceptable to another.


How Much Quality Training Do You Need? July 18, 2016

Posted by Tim Rodgers in Management & leadership, Operations, Quality.
Tags: , , ,
add a comment

OK, not everyone needs to be a Six Sigma Black Belt, but what elements of quality training should be provided to everyone in the organization?

When I worked at Hewlett-Packard in the early 1990s, senior leadership in our business unit attended a week-long series of six sigma classes at Xerox. When these HP folks returned they were provided with training materials and required to teach their direct reports about six sigma, and those direct reports were required to teach their direct reports, and so on all the way down the organization to people like me.

At the time, quality was not really part of my official responsibilities. I worked at a desk, creating product marketing programs for an internal supplier. The six sigma training was interesting to me, but I didn’t see the relevance to my daily work. What I remember most about those classes was how we were supposed to organize routine meetings, including assigning roles during the meeting and being clear about the objectives for the meeting. I don’t remember anything that seemed directly applicable to the quality of our output as a business unit, or the quality of the work artifacts that we produced as part of our daily responsibilities. It just didn’t seem relevant.


When You Neglect Operations February 1, 2016

Posted by Tim Rodgers in Management & leadership, Operations, Process engineering, Quality.
Tags: , , , ,
add a comment

A few months ago I heard that one of the companies I used to work for decided to shut down a business unit. I wasn’t surprised, but some people might have been. They had a diversified product line and a hard-working sales force that maintained a high level of demand. Large customers were excited about the new products under development. The supply chain was well-established. What went wrong?


What’s the Value of ISO 9001? January 25, 2016

Posted by Tim Rodgers in Quality, strategy.
Tags: , , , ,
add a comment

Earlier tonight I called in to listen to a presentation given at my local American Society of Quality (ASQ) chapter meeting about some of the changes in the ISO 9001 specification in the new 2015 version. I thought the speaker did a great job. He’s a consultant who makes his living helping companies become ISO 9001 certified and preparing for audits. He highlighted the differences in the new version of ISO 9001, and provided some useful tips about how to prepare for the updated requirements.

I don’t think he intended to do this, but he also made me question the purpose of ISO 9001 certification, and specifically whether it’s worth the time and money and effort.


The Battle Over Discrepant Material January 19, 2016

Posted by Tim Rodgers in Quality, Supply chain.
Tags: , , , , , ,
1 comment so far

Quality issues have been on my mind a lot lately, specifically some of the more frustrating things that I’ve had to deal with during my career as a quality manager. In my last job my team was responsible for managing the discrepant material review (DMR) process for our US-based factory.

For those who are unfamiliar, the DMR process is how most factories deal with raw materials or other inputs that have been identified as possibly defective and unsuitable for use. Incoming materials that don’t pass visual inspection or other testing are supposed to be sequestered so they can’t go into production. Later, the DMR process is used to determine what to do with that material. The choices are usually:


What Is the Quality Team Responsible For? (Part 2) January 11, 2016

Posted by Tim Rodgers in Process engineering, Quality.
Tags: , , , , ,
add a comment

If “everyone is responsible for quality,” then what is the quality team responsible for? This isn’t a trick question. If a team or department (or person) doesn’t have a clear, distinct, and ideally-unique assigned responsibility, then should they continue to exist as a separate entity in the organization? Shouldn’t they be doing something else instead, as part of another team?

Of course many businesses don’t have a separate quality team or department at all, and others have chosen to eliminate the quality department as an independent function. That doesn’t necessarily mean that they don’t care about quality. Some of these businesses would probably argue that they have a greater commitment to quality because those principles and tools are fully integrated into all of their functions and processes. Why should all of the Six Sigma Green Belts and Black Belts be located in one central organization? Why not build local competencies within the functional groups, whether in new product development or marketing or finance?


“Speaking of Reliability” Podcasts January 2, 2016

Posted by Tim Rodgers in Quality, Supply chain.
Tags: ,
add a comment

My friend and former colleague Fred Schenkelberg has started a regular podcast called Speaking of Reliability (SOR) featuring informal conversations on a variety of topics related to quality and reliability engineering. I’ve enjoyed being a part of this series.

I encourage you to check out the recordings at Fred’s Accendo Reliability web site:


So far our conversations have been focused on supply chain issues, including how to get suppliers engaged in failure analysis and reliability improvements. You’ll find me on the following recordings:

  • SOR 013: The Design and the Supplier’s Capability
  • SOR 014: Importance of Clear Communication Across the Supply Chain
  • SOR 015: Dealing with the Drive to the Lowest Cost Supplier
  • SOR 016: Breaking the “Profit in Repair” Dilemma
  • SOR 017: Examples of Great Supplier Relationships
  • SOR 018: How to Build a Valuable Relationship with Your Supplier
  • SOR 027: The Need to Collaborate on System Failure Analysis
  • SOR 028: Failure Analysis Best Practices

You can also find the Speaking of Reliability podcasts on iTunes. Give a listen and let us know what you think.

%d bloggers like this: