Deming says "Quality is fitness for use " and not " meeting customer expectations".If a customer is not willing to share the usage / function of the part with the supplier ,then what should the supplier do?

You do what you can - make the product/service meet the customers expectations and if you can exceed them, great. Even if you knew the application it is doubtful you would be able to tell as well as the customer can how "fit for use" your product is. Perhaps Deming's contest was from an internal perspective.

If the customer doesnt want it it aint fit for use is it ?

Martin,

That was sort of a curt answer, wasn't it? And I'd have to say I can recall some cases where that was not true.

Andrews

Could you tell us where that quote came from ?

Mike

My response was based on the principal that we need to listen to the voice of the customer. He decides what is fit for his use. If we ignore this we may well find ourselves making product that to our minds is fit for use, yet we have no customers that want it.

'Fit for use' is a very subjective and whooly concept.

M Greenaway said:

Mike

My response was based on the principal that we need to listen to the voice of the customer. He decides what is fit for his use. If we ignore this we may well find ourselves making product that to our minds is fit for use, yet we have no customers that want it.

'Fit for use' is a very subjective and whooly concept.

When we do our "Contract Review" or "Product Realization", we determine and guarantee that our product is fit for use. No? The customer defines the crititeria and you meet the criteria and supply your product. No? Just think of it as fit for the Customer's use.
I agree, M. Who would make anything without customers? Am I missing something?
Does anyone think that the Customer has to tell you what he is going to use your product for? I guess you can always make that a pre-condition before the sale. You better have something good.
You won't be in business very long.
Most product warranty is voided if it is used in a manner not designed or intended for. No? What's this all about, Alfie? :bonk:
:ko: :smokin:

What's this all about, Alfie?

Not really sure Energy, but there are some great thoughts here.

I agree that fitness for use comes down to the customer but is the customer always fair in making the judgement or just waving the "customer is always right" flag?

With the latest trend to "Zero Defects", a lot of customers will intertwine the definition Zero Defects with Zero Nonconformance. There is an obvious distinction between the two and Martin and Mike have hit on it. Every nonconcormance does not in itself create a defect.

I would like to hear from others on how you plan to address the "Zero Defects" mandate and are your customers allowing the distinction between defects and a nonconformance.

Great topic - hope it goes somewhere.

Dave

D.Scott said:

With the latest trend to "Zero Defects", a lot of customers will intertwine the definition Zero Defects with Zero Nonconformance. There is an obvious distinction between the two and Martin and Mike have hit on it. Every nonconcormance does not in itself create a defect.

I would like to hear from others on how you plan to address the "Zero Defects" mandate and are your customers allowing the distinction between defects and a nonconformance.

Great topic - hope it goes somewhere.

Dave

Dave,

Are we talking about a Customer who may declare our equipment not fit for use, even though we have a Purchase Order with all the requirements, terms and conditions spelled out? Or are we talking about something wrong with the equipment? The original post was, I thought, about a Supplier not having access to the use of his product, which I feel is irrelevant. I'm not sure what we are talking about, now, and I sure as he** do not know the difference between a defect and a nonconformance. I'm sure I'm about to find out. Just like the difference between continuous and continually, I hope not! :bonk: :bonk: :ko: :smokin:

I think that the phrase - fitness for use - is a phrase coined by Dr. Juran and not Dr. Deming. However, Dr. Deming said that Quality is defined by the producer through knowledge of the Customer. What this means is this: you must determine what it is your customer is after. In your case, this might be difficult, but it will be necessary. The benefit of having standards, criteria or tolerances defined by the customer is that it reduces the effort to do research (by the organization). Look to see if any of these are available through drawing specifications or contractual requirements.

Dr. Deming cited this example: the customer didn't know that they wanted a pneumatic tire. What he wanted was a wheel and got what he expected, only better. Quality was created by the organization through innovation. Another example is Sony's Camera Manufacturing division. They had already achieved high quality cameras, perhaps the best in the industry but had not fulfilled the need of the customer. When they thought about it, they determined that the need was the ability for owners to take good pictures. Despite the camera being of high quality, the ingredient that neutralized the effect of the camera were the owners ability to take good pictures. Many did not set the exposure and distance properly, thus creating fuzzy or under/over exposed pictures. Once they determined that folks wanted 'good' pictures, they set out to recreate quality in the form of auto-focusing and light sensors to determine exposure. They revolutionized the camera industry in the process.

Quality is determined by organization, through your efforts to understand the customer needs and working to fulfill and exceed these expectations (known and unknown).

Without my OOTC being handy, I seem to recall that Dr. Deming said that Quality was an outcome that gives the Customer a benefit. Can anyone correct me on this??

As for Zero Defects, we can thank Philip Crosby for starting us on the Twelve Sigma kick some years back. As it was once stated here by a Cove Member, "It is a noble concept, but not really practical."

Regards,

Kevin

Andrews said:

Deming says "Quality is fitness for use " and not " meeting customer expectations".If a customer is not willing to share the usage / function of the part with the supplier ,then what should the supplier do?

Hmmm... That can't be very unusual... Ok, in that case I guess the supplier has to ask for specifications as necessary to produce the product.

/Claes

Thanks Kevin

I didnt think that it sounded like Deming, certainly not without some explanantion on what 'fit for purpose' meant, which undoubtedly would contain a strong element of 'what does the customer want' or 'who defines the purpose'.

I am also confused by Daves distinction between a nonconformance and a defect - please elaborate.

With regard to Zero Defects anyone who understands the nature of processes will know that this target is impossible to achieve. Deming was very critical of such slogans as they only serve to demoralise the workforce. Also this is often seen as perfection of the product to current specification/requirements without considering whether the actual specification or requirement is adequate or over the top.

Energy - Feigenbaum defines them as follows:

Defect: - a departure of a quality characteristic from its intended level or state that occurs with a severity sufficient to cause an associated product or service to not satisfy intended, normal or reasonable foreseeable usage requirements. (Armand V. Feigenbaum – Total Quality Control 3rd Edition Revised)

Nonconformity: - a departure of a quality characteristic from its intended level or state that occurs with a severity sufficient to cause an associated product or service to not meet a specification requirement. (Armand V. Feigenbaum – Total Quality Control 3rd Edition Revised)

The difference being that a defective can't be used as intended which is not necessarily so with a nonconformance.

If my customer orders a blue car and the paint job comes out a slightly different shade, it is a nonconformance. That doesn't make it a defective car. It still runs and does everything it was intended to do.

I understand I have deviated from the original question, but does that make the discussion unuseable?

BTW - I want to know every intended use of our products as part of APQP. How can I meet the customer's expectations if I don't understand what they are in the first place? If I have a customer who says "Put some of that orange stuff on my part" but won't discuss what he expects it to do, we are headed for trouble.

Just my opinion of course.

Dave

Thanks Dave

Defective also sometimes carries the meaning that safety is affected by the product. But do we need to make such distinctions ?

In the analogy of the blue car OK I might accept the car, but would I buy another car from the same supplier ? Doubtful.

We need to address both types of problem, not just to satisfy the immediate customer, but for the long term health of the organisation. 'Fit for purpose' is an awful excuse for churning out sub-standard products.

I guess that if your customer allows you to make the distinction, then they probably have a different expectation on how defects and nonconformances are handled. Then again, this assumes that they understand the distinction being made here.

I agree with Martin that both need to be addressed, but as resources are limited, then it is reasonable to assume that the critical will override the 'less' critical and resources will be thrown will be thrown there. Unfortunately, I see it as a case of an 'observation' festering to become a 'finding' later. We must be savvy about the money, but not foolish about the bigger picture.

I guess what I am saying is that I am wondering how big of a distinction to make of it all.

Returning to the question, how does one establish critical quality characteristics if the customer is not helpful? While I'll grant that some companies don't fully understand how their product will be used, it is reasonable to understand as a producer, especially where you may be design responsible, how the product/service is to be used. Otherwise, as a customer you shouldn't have great expectations one way or another about performance, quality, or cost. The Customer is an integral part of designing for quality and production.

This would be like a customer stepping up to a register at McDonald's where the clerk is ready to take an order, only the customer doesn't speak. The clerk can keep guessing as to whether the customer wants a hamburg or a chicken sandwich, but without feedback, a guess will be entered. Sometimes the guess will be right, 50/50 in this case. But when the choices are greater, the odds go against making a correct decision. It isn't hard to see that by guessing, we add to the costs and reduce our profits. We also miss a target: customer satisfaction. The Customer must communicate needs and wants or we must find them out. Only in this way can we make informed decisions on how to deliver what is expected.

My guess: you probably won't eat and the organization will choose to work with the next customer.

Regards,

Kevin

"Quality is fitness for use " Just a thought here. If you look at the word fitness it expresses the suitability of the product. I see the word fitness and I always think of exercise or athletics (it is football season!). Look at the difference between a marathon runner and a sprinter. I think we can agree both would be in a high degree of fitness but in differing manners, both specific for the intended use.

I can't see using this definition as a stand alone for "Quality" although it is part of it. The customer puts the final stamp of approval on the quality of a supplied part. Meeting requirements is usually easier to understand (be within tolerance, on-time, quantities, etc.) the expectations of the customer is where the discussion needs to be.

How about this:

For the manufacturing folks, quality is conformance to the specifications and requirements supplied by the customer (meet and/or exceed the specifications).

For the design folks, quality can also mean, as Kevin said, "Quality is defined by the producer through knowledge of the Customer". In this way you give the design folks the opportunity to create products that the customer themselves never knew they wanted or needed (i.e. the pneumatic tire, the Post-It note, Fed-Ex, etc. etc. ad infinitum).

Kevin Mader said:


Quality was created by the organization through innovation. Another example is Sony's Camera Manufacturing division. They had already achieved high quality cameras, perhaps the best in the industry but had not fulfilled the need of the customer. When they thought about it, they determined that the need was the ability for owners to take good pictures. Despite the camera being of high quality, the ingredient that neutralized the effect of the camera were the owners ability to take good pictures. Many did not set the exposure and distance properly, thus creating fuzzy or under/over exposed pictures. Once they determined that folks wanted 'good' pictures, they set out to recreate quality in the form of auto-focusing and light sensors to determine exposure. They revolutionized the camera industry in the process.

Regards,

Kevin

My opinion: This is the function of your Marketing Group. They study demographics, potential Customers and what they(Customers) would like to see in your equipment list or catalogs, in addition to whatever you currently have. If you don't make it, you study the feasibility of designing and fabricating it. As marketing strategies are usually not auditable we kind of forget that their efforts, while sales oriented, can be used to demonstrate Continuous Improvement. No? :ko: :smokin:

I am very sorry. It was Juran , who said " What is needed (company's quality mission) is a concept of supplying a SERVICE which meets the needs of user - fitness for use" rather than "making a product which conforms to specification" .

Ascertaining customer's requirement:
is it an excercise done in macro scale, which should facilitate establishing the product specifications : what the customer would get satisfied with, and how may we delight the customer?

fitness for use, however is in a micro perspective, to be able to provide safe ( yes safety is a priority, energy and many of you have concurred ) goods for usage. The product realisation process to ensure right product characterisitics / post testing determine the requirements for ultimate fitness for use.

Letme cite a case:
' A customer specified 99.999% pure drinking water ( including specified minerals). He was supplied the same.
QED.

But what is there in 0.001 % ;the allowed impurity level? Is it the manufacturer's responsibility to ascertain(whether it pertains to mere dust (fitness for use?) or.... ....... will that bust ???
Please bail me out!
thareja