Chapter 10 Problem 10.5 You are a quality manager engaged in a seminar to discus

Question

Chapter 10 Problem 10.5

You are a quality manager engaged in a seminar to discuss common problems with other quality managers. A lively discussion has developed over some problems associated with pressures applied to quality managers. The pressures concern the shipment of nonconforming, unfit, or even unsafe products. In addition, the pressures concern the matter of the quality manager signing a test certificate or other document that puts him on record as having approved something when he was really against it.

Here are several of the problem categories identified by the group:

• A lot of product has been made with a nonconformance to specification. All company managers (including the quality manager) are convinced that the nonconforming product is fit for use. They are not agreed on whether to tell the client about the non-conformance. The marketing manager is against informing the client on the ground that some clients may use such information to wring a price concession out of the manufacturer.

• A product lot contains a small percentage of units that are clearly unfit for use. There is a debate on whether to sort the lot to remove the defective units or to ship the lot as is and pay any claims as they arise. The production manager (who wants to ship the product without sorting) contends that the problem is purely economic and that the quality considerations are secondary.

• A large electromechanical system has been made under a contract that includes a penalty clause for late delivery. The system has already met its test requirements and is being crated for shipment. At this point, it is discovered that the test equipment used to test one of the subsystems was out of calibration at the time of the test. Under the accepted practice in the industry, such a discovery throws suspicion on the quality of the subsystem and hence on the quality of the system. Unfortunately, the subsystem is not easily accessible. It is buried deep within the system so that it would involve a serious delay as well as a large expense to take the system apart, test the subsystem, and then put it all back together again. The manufacturing people take the position that the subsystem is okay despite the condition of the test equipment. They note that another subsystem built by the same people using the sample process has just tested okay. They urge that the system be shipped based on this evidence of a reliable process and work force.

• A product with a good safety record has resulted in serious injury to a user. The injury involved a most unusual combination of unlikely events plus an obvious misuse by the user. The design manager defends the design on the record—the only known serious injury was associated with misuse.

What are your conclusions as to the position to be taken by the quality manager in the foregoing cases with respect to (a) shipping the product and (b) signing the documents?

Explanation / Answer

There are two aspects to quality that need to be analyzed in the foregoing cases. One is the conformance to specifications and the other is functional fitness (fit for use). In the first case, the nonconforming product fails on the first aspect, but is ok to pass on the functional fitness aspect. Functional fitness means the product, despite being nonconforming to the specifications, will not affect its usability. Given these circumstances and considering the potential economic considerations of concession in price and cost of quality for rework, the product may get concessions on quality parameters to the limited extent. And the quality manager may pass the product. However while signing the documents, the quality manager must note the correct test results and the deviation from specifications with recommendation to pass based on fit for use criterion.

In the second case, a process cannot be 100% error free. The quality manager needs to do a statistical process analysis (SPC) and determine if the defective proportion is within the acceptable limits as per process capability. And if the defective fraction is within the acceptable limits, then the lot should be passed. However if the defective fraction exceeds the permissible limit, then the lot should be rejected and defective items should be sorted out. The quality manager should sign the documents based on actual SPC results

In the third case, the position of quality manager would be to test the subsystem anyways, instead of relying on the assumption of the product being ok based on past performance of the process. Considering that there could be a possibility of faulty subsystem, the real cost of quality could be very high, if the product is shipped as it is. The cost may include transportation cost of logistics, reverse logistics and then relogistics, associated handling costs, loss of goodwill in the eyes of the customer, cost of rework, repackaging, inspection, potential delays, and penalties associated with delays. Therefore the quality manager should not sign the documents to certifying the subsystem as ok with the knowledge of test equipment being faulty.

The position of the quality manager in the fourth case depends upon the actual sequence of events and the misuse by the user. Prima facie, a good product design involves fool proofing concept, which ensures that the product cannot be used in a wrong way, even if the user wants to do so. However, there are practical limitations to making every product fool proof to 100% extent. In that case, what needs to be analyzed is whether the product complied to safety standards. If the product was in compliance with the safety standards and guidelines and had an established safety record , then the quality manager’s position is justified.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse C
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.