Quality Control

[Twitch]

OK Hemingway if we can't talk about economics either because some yahoo might turn political let me pose it this way.

Any company purchasing products from any country- why aren't the companies responsible for quality control? Why does a federal agency have to do what should be the responsibility for any normal importer, distributor or manufacture?

Most people that have been associated with these entities know that manufacturers regularly pull products from the line to test for consistancy. I've worked for importer/distributors who essentially do the same thing especially if any additional assembly or repackaging is done in-house and because they are liable.

Anyone's thoughts, on anything that is legal to discuss.....?

 

[Brad Bowers]

Regardless of any government oversight, I think all companies should be self-regulatory and preemptive when it comes to quality control, particularly with things that have the ability to cause bodily harm. However, that requires discipline and responsibility that seems to be lacking in today's bottom-line-oriented corporate culture. Sure, there will be a correction in a company's product lines, but only after injuries, illnesses, and deaths force the issue out into the open.

Brad

 

[alphy27]

What seems confusing and contradictory to what one might think would be common sense is this: Long before the current trend of personal injury and liability laws affecting manufacturers, things just seemed to be made better. Please correct me if I'm wrong but it seems to me that current manufacturing liability law if far more complex than back in the 20's 30's 40's and 50's when manufactured goods were made to last. One would think that the opposite would happen. All the cost of making good on law suits due to shoddily made stuff should make the manufacturer rethink their quality standards. I agree with you Brad Bowers, it's the "bottom-line mentality". There is definitely a diminishing sense of accountability in todays society in general.

 

[Tango Yankee]

My only experience in manufacturing was in the late '70s. I worked in a roofing materials factory. I was the first person on the line to see the finished shingles. As such, it was my job to maintain the qualify of the shingles by several methods. If there was a problem I pulled the shingles off the line and called to the "back end" to give them direction on what to do to correct the problem. I was supposed to pull the bundles of shingles off the line for disposal until the product was within standards again.

Unfortunately, the shift foremen were more concerned with their end-of-shift bundle count than the quality of the product. I was often ordered to put the substandard bundles back onto the line. When that happened I would make sure I had kept out samples and called the shift quality assurance guy to the machine. Much to the annoyance of the foremen this usually resulted in the QA guy putting a hold on a larger number of bundles than what would have been taken off the line to ensure the substandard shingles didn't make it out of the warehouse. That number was subtracted from their count. I have no idea whether or not my counterparts on the other two shifts were as concientious as I was but from what I gathered from the QA guys the answer was no. Me, I simply wanted to be proud of the product we put out.

I wouldn't be surprised if there is an ongoing battle between production foremen and QA reps in most factories.

Regards,
Tom

 

[pgoat]

Interesting thread. I'm being reminded of the film Executive Suite - one of my fave sleeper films.

 

[Twitch]

Deep answers. Thankyou. I think you guys probably have it right about companies owing up to their responsibilities. In the good old days it was something they did in an effort to improve and keep their images strong. I may go as far as to say this was more important than profits. I know, blasphemous in these times.

If profits is now the most important driving force in business about when can you see that having changed from the old thinking? 1980s I'm estimating. As I best recall by then it was all leverage buy outs, junk bonds and 'profit is king' thinking.

We'll invent a fantasy land instead of talking about real places so no one is upset. All that considered, how can our fictional country, Babaloovinia, have such poor manufacturing quality control that it not only produces poor quality products but dangerous ones?

Our home country Wakadoo has sourced out almost all of its manufacturing. In the past Wakadoo bought goods from other countries with rather immature manufacturing abilities but prices were good. So as quality rose in these outsourced countries so did their cost to manufacture and prices.

So here in Wakadoo the greedy companies weren't satisfied with ample profits they sought excessive profits. They bought goods from the next emerging manufacturing countries until they too became to expensive, and then the next until now Babaloovinia is about the last feasible place that has the capability to satisfy Wakadoo's industrial and manufacturing needs.

So we have Wakadoo government agencies checking the quality of Babalooninian exports because they have proved to be dangerous to health by Wakadoo's standards. I have to wonder why the companies themselves haven't policed themselves better in quality control. Greed is one excuse. Should the maker of the bad products be cited somehow or is it the sole responsibility of the importer? What else can we do to preclude this from recurring?

Anyones thoughts are welcome.

 

[carebear]

In essence, regulation results in across the board slackening of quality as it is typically easiest and most profitable to do the minimum now required.

Why put out effort and capital to build a "better" anything if a merely adequate product will do? Part of the money saved can be put into advertising and flashy packaging to attract the rubes who don't demand quality anyway, some of the rest stashed away to pay the fines on anything that slips past the inspectors and is caught after the fact.

 

[Warbaby]

Once upon a time, manufacturers took pride in the quality of their product and competed on the basis of quality. This is what the concept of "brand" was all about. If you bought an item and were pleased with the quality and durability, you became loyal to that brand. Now most "brands" are owned by mega corporations who have bought out the little guys (or driven them out of business). Greed, bottom line profits, stockholder return, and the myth of infinite growth have made the concept of "brand" meaningless. Items are no longer manufactured by relatively small companies that take pride in their products, they are outsourced to the lowest bidding third-world countries.

There is hope, however. Sooner or later, an economy based on infinite growth must collapse. In the meantime, boycott the big corporations and support real "brands". Buy only locally or regionally manufactured products from small, private companies whenever possible. Sure, it'll cost a little more, but you get what you pay for - quality products that real people stand behind.

 

[alphy27]

If profits is now the most important driving force in business about when can you see that having changed from the old thinking? 1980s I'm estimating. As I best recall by then it was all leverage buy outs, junk bonds and 'profit is king' thinking.

All that considered, how can our fictional country, Babaloovinia, have such poor manufacturing quality control that it not only produces poor quality products but dangerous ones?

So we have Wakadoo government agencies checking the quality of Babalooninian exports because they have proved to be dangerous to health by Wakadoo's standards. I have to wonder why the companies themselves haven't policed themselves better in quality control. Greed is one excuse. Should the maker of the bad products be cited somehow or is it the sole responsibility of the importer? What else can we do to preclude this from recurring?

Anyones thoughts are welcome.

The timing of this phenomenon, in my oppinion seems to coincide with the coming of age of the "Baby Boomers". The generation, admittedly that I belong to. We are the kids that benefited from the post war prosperity our parents built for us with blood sweat and tears quite literally. My parent's noble generation had to live through the Great Depression and WWII. As kids and young adults they grew up having to do without. Learning a crucial life lesson of how to make dew with enough and most times less. Read the work of any competent sociologist and you'll find this sited. We are the "spoiled generation". Not due to any fault of our parents but society as a whole. As any good parents would they only tried to give their kids what they themselves were never afforded due to circumstances. We are the generation that saw no limits to personal gain. More of my generation grew up greedy. More, more, more, and sooner too. Back in my father day it was unusual to see a young millionaire. Now a days young millionaires are a dime-a-dozen and one of the fastest growing groups in our population according to Robert Frank author of "Richistan: A Journey Through the American Wealth Boom and the Lives of the New Rich".

As for Babaloovinia's manufacturing standards; In my experience with the manufacturers I've worked for the standards will be what you hold then to. If you order widgets you have to be very specific about the way you want them. Leave nothing to guess work because the Babaloovinians might guess wrong. What they think is a proper widget could be different than what you think. If you follow through with quality control on the Wakadoo end of things you should be all set but like most things people will try to get away with what you let them. Especially when there's money involved.

This is all a matter of personal observation, only my opinion.

 

[Twitch]

What we lacked in quantity we made up for in quality responses. The love/hate relationship we have with big companies is devisive to say the least. I think it is correct that companies now are not all that interested in brand building other than what it takes to make profit. If a brand begins to be less profitable it is easier to sell it than to fix its market profile.

At any rate it isn't anythig like it was. Instead of building long-term stability in a brand or company it is preferable to have profits for the stock holders. Perhaps a another product of the dot com fiascos is the fact that people see all imvestment as a day trader thing instead of a long-term thing. They'd rather cut and run with a small profit than be patient and wait for a stock split and large rewards.

 

[jake431]

I believe the term is "planned obsolescence" - corporations plan on their items to fail so that you have to buy a new one to replace it. I think that the companies figure they can get more money from the consumers this way.

So far, they've been correct.

-Jake

 

[alphy27]

I believe the term is "planned obsolescence" - corporations plan on their items to fail so that you have to buy a new one to replace it. I think that the companies figure they can get more money from the consumers this way.

So far, they've been correct.

-Jake

Two very fine examples that have been around for a long time, Car tires, and light bulbs. The very simple science for these products has been around since they started making them. The WORKING light bulbs in the Thomas Edison home, now a museum, are the original ones produced by his company way back in the day. They have never burned out. Can't make any money if your product never fails. A professor I knew who worked with an engineer for Pirelli Tires once told me that vulcanized rubber would last approximately five times as long in a tire if they just left out the blackening agent that gives the tires their color. That stuff is called candle black. It's just pure carbon soot. The engineer said the carbon soot weakens the rubber. I don't know about you but I could get used to beige tires if it meant they would last five times longer. Two fine examples of golden age shafting of the American consumer.