L
lee01
I have been involved in ‘Quality’ since leaving secondary education as an inspector for a small precision engineering organisation manufacturing various safety valves for the nuclear, oil and gas industries.
I have been witness for many poor quality parts being delivered to our customers, under the pretence of ‘fit for use’ simply because they needed the part urgently. The part’s failures ranged from poor appearance to dimensional incorrectness. As an inspector trying to instil confidence in the company’s workmanship, this was detrimental to my goal.
I have since been promoted to quality manager where the fight to scrap what I consider the biggest misleading philosophy ever thought up, was taken up against the engineering manager/s etc. I often won the case, although several parts had been returned as unacceptable prior to my appointment and to me the damage had been done. It seems Fitness for purpose has become an excuse for people to manufacture parts at a lower level of quality, or to use cheaper materials and tooling.
I’m now involved with several organisations as a quality contractor and promoting my opinion is becoming far easier as my word is consider valid.
Okay, maybe ‘fitness for purpose’ cannot be defined as simply yes and no answers but if a part is physically incorrect, irrespective of the parts required use, it should be failed and at the very most sold to the customer as failed at a discount price!
What does everyone else think?
Lee01
I have been witness for many poor quality parts being delivered to our customers, under the pretence of ‘fit for use’ simply because they needed the part urgently. The part’s failures ranged from poor appearance to dimensional incorrectness. As an inspector trying to instil confidence in the company’s workmanship, this was detrimental to my goal.
I have since been promoted to quality manager where the fight to scrap what I consider the biggest misleading philosophy ever thought up, was taken up against the engineering manager/s etc. I often won the case, although several parts had been returned as unacceptable prior to my appointment and to me the damage had been done. It seems Fitness for purpose has become an excuse for people to manufacture parts at a lower level of quality, or to use cheaper materials and tooling.
I’m now involved with several organisations as a quality contractor and promoting my opinion is becoming far easier as my word is consider valid.
Okay, maybe ‘fitness for purpose’ cannot be defined as simply yes and no answers but if a part is physically incorrect, irrespective of the parts required use, it should be failed and at the very most sold to the customer as failed at a discount price!
What does everyone else think?
Lee01