The Unholy Trinity - Sales, design and production

[CarolX]

I’ll try this again as several of the “answers” I feel I’m getting would be typical of a response from a politician or a hungry consultant. By this I mean they are so general (and inoffensive to all) that I don’t see how they can be used in the real world. If it’s me that’s in the wrong then tell me – it is after all a discussion forum – not an auditorium.

I am sorry, sir, but I am neither. I am just a Quality Manager at a job shop.

Please understand that here in the USA, it is a holiday weekend. The responses you will get today and tommorrow will be minimal. I certainly don't want to discuss work issues in detail today or tommorrow.

 

[Wes Bucey]

My starting point, due to the fact that many seem to believe this "Urban Myth) or should I say "Quality Myth"?, that "all" quality errors are caused or created by production.

I've found that instead of cooperating for the good of the company, sales, design and production seem to have very different goals and spend more time and energy with self promovation than cooperation. Quality invariably ends up as being where the "buck" stops. Corrective Action reports stating problem, cause (if it wasn't the butler, who did do it"? and the "solution" on factory posters and billboards could maybe be part of a solution? Too drastic? :mg:

Sales believe they are the most important because they get the orders, design because they are the brains behind products, and production who think they are the only ones with common sense.

Everyone in every department, in some way or another, contributes to the image and quality of the company's products - and some have more influence (good and bad) than others. :truce:

One important factor is - what "signal" do the chief executives send out and how often do they get involved when hands need to get "dirty". Even a kid knows you can't bake a cake without breaking an egg.
<SNIP>

I’ll try this again as several of the “answers” I feel I’m getting would be typical of a response from a politician or a hungry consultant. By this I mean they are so general (and inoffensive to all) that I don’t see how they can be used in the real world. If it’s me that’s in the wrong then tell me – it is after all a discussion forum – not an auditorium.

Am I coming off too sarcastic?

What I am looking for is, if anyone know what to do when quality suffers because several department pursue different goals and top management is passive.

Can anyone see the quality manger going to the board of directors and getting the passive/weak/incompetent (take your pick) top manager fired? I guess not J Unless ……….. now that’s a story I’d love to hear, but not if it starts, “Once upon a time ……”

So, here's a "serious" answer:
As most regular Cove readers know by now, I have over 40 years experience in business. Although I operate under the sobriquet, "Quality Manager," I spent almost my entire career in the C-level executive suite. I have operated and or interacted with literally hundreds of companies over the years as owner, partner, customer, supplier.

One of my previous posts describes my own basic methodology of operating a successful business:

http://elsmar.com/Forums/showpost.php?p=105566&postcount=20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cari Spears
Did you do this when you purchased the business? Or after how many years of running it?

What did the employees do? Did they get laid off? Or did you do the gutting in sections in order to keep people working?

Good question!

We made the final decision 3 months after we bought it. Everybody stayed on payroll. All operators were in on planning with architect and conversations with machine tool reps as to what equipment we would buy/lease. Once we began the gutting, operators and others attended training classes off-site to learn how to use the new machines we were getting. We visited various suppliers in small groups (including our operators) to do on-site supplier approval visits. We managed our administrative operations from a small office our neighbor across the street lent us.

We coordinated almost everything we would do over the three month "gut and build" operation BEFORE we moved the first old machine out. The machine tool manufacturers and their representatives were wonderful to work with and allowed our operators to make product we sold to customers during the training period for the operators.

While all this went on, my partners and I searched for new customers to fit the niche markets we had chosen as the major impetus for our makeover. Once we had our targets lined up, we went into a blitz as soon as we were up and running again. All told, it took us one full calendar year from the day we disconnected the first old machine before we had a net profit from operations. It took 18 months from day one before we made a net profit after making our debt payments.

We negotiated a lot of moratoriums and deferred payments to help stretch our equity. It was tough, but almost everything went according to our original plan. We increased our target niche to include manufacturing components for medical devices based on information provided by our machine tool reps. It was a small, but instantly profitable part of our business.

Construction and new machine installation went like clockwork (almost "plug and play.") We used sample parts our guys had been making while learning how to run the machines as our marketing tools when we dealt with prospects. We sawed them in half, glued them on a card with one advertising line: "If you need parts like this, you need us!" plus contact info and sent them to our target market. Inquiries accompanied by part drawings came in so fast, we had to install a second fax machine and then a third to assure no customer got a "busy signal."

Instead of sitting down to quote the part, we turned traditional contract machining marketing methods upside down. We picked up the phone and called the customer with questions like:

1. Do you currently use this part?
2. How many do you use a year?
3. Do you currently make it yourself or buy it?
4. Why are you seeking a quote?
   (If the chooch said anything remotely resembling, "Just checking the market." We replied, "Sorry, we only deal with folks who need the product. No quote. Goodbye!")

If it was an existing part, the one answer we wanted to hear was that they were unhappy with their current supply, either for price or quality. We then went into our concurrent engineering mode and asked them to elaborate. If it was a quality problem, we asked them to send us samples of the nonconforming parts with their inspection sheets so we could "diagnose" the problems. Our whole stance was to position ourselves as "partner" first, before WE ever quoted.

If price was the issue, we'd ask, "How much do you need to buy it for?" Then we said, "That might be doable. If not, we'll tell you straight out that it isn't. If we suggested some design changes which would make it less expensive to manufacture, but still have same fit and function, would you be able to work with that? Are there mating parts which would be affected? Can you send us the assembly drawing and the drawings for the mating parts so we can look at that as part of our analysis?"

Usually, by the time we were finished with the introductory give and take, we had several phone calls, talked to design engineers and manufacturing managers. Soon, the problem of "price" was the furthest thing from the mind of anybody at the prospect's organization. We were busy establishing ourselves as the "go to" folks.

If it was a new part, never made before, we asked about potential real use (we didn't quote a blind spread of quantities and price breaks.) We asked about mating parts, end use, etc. Finally we asked the big question, "What do you think you need to buy this for to be able to have a marketable product yourself?" Then we went into our pitch, "That might be doable . . ."

If we spent as much as an hour qualifying a prospect, it was much more cost efficient than sending quotes out on the fax like oysters spawning in the ocean. We had names, extension numbers and "rapport" established. We would call up before we sent out a formal quote with the oral one, telling the recipient to go to his fax machine and pick it up, stay on the line and then tell us if it came through clearly. Our quotes NEVER got lost in the shuffle. We asked for a target date when he would have the answer and the order. We followed up, eager to help if there was a glitch at their end.

By our third year, our regular customers would call us first, ask if we had time to look at a drawing, then send it over by fax while WE waited for it to arrive. Often, they said, (before we went into our interrogation):

1. We currently use this part.
2. We use ____ thousand a year.
3. We've been buying it from John Doe, tell us if we're getting a good deal or not. We currently pay $_____.
4. We're asking you to look at it - if you can come close on the price, we'd rather deal with a known quantity like you. Sometimes these guys act like they don't need us as a customer.
5. What more do you need to know?

Sometimes, just sometimes, the plan works! Our plan was for our customers to think of us as partners with whom they could share confidential information. It worked because we never betrayed the confidence. Many times, we'd tell them they were already getting a good deal. If the quality was a minor problem, we'd offer to consult with their current supplier to help him overcome the obstacle to good quality. Our pitch to the "competitor" would be that we were partners with them in satisfying the customer. A happy, satisfied customer was easier for everyone to deal with. We sometimes used these "competitors" to outsource some of our overflow once we got their quality systems up to snuff. Our point was, "If you have similar machines, you should be able to do similar work. Let us help you tackle the quality and service issues."

This was probably way more than you needed to know, but I am passionate about running a business smoothly and profitably. In my mind the strategies involved in Business Management Systems and Quality Management Systems are interchangeable. They all revolve around making yourself indispensible to your customers.

In this following post, which actually is post#18 in the thread and triggered Cari's question for her answer in Post # 20, I discuss the concept of "empowerment"

http://elsmar.com/Forums/showpost.php?p=105469&postcount=18
An efficient shop
As I promised earlier and got sidetracked:
When I ran a high tech contract machining shop, we made a corporate decision and gutted our entire building, sold off all the machines, and designed from scratch what we wanted.

Facilities:
We put power lines in the floor where we planned to place machine "cells" and in trays in the ceiling where we could drop down new wires in the future as occasion might demand. We put in all new, low power, high lumen lighting and air conditioning. New concrete floor was laid to hold ANY load, finished with a practically impervious epoxy finish.

We had pertinent inspection equipment at every cell. Specialized equipment like CMM and optical comparators were kept in a soundproofed, climate controlled lab along with our special scales and weight and dimension standards for calibrating instruments. Every operator was trained in using all equipment (if we could trust him with a half-million dollar machine tool, we could sure trust him with a $20,000 CMM)

We built a soundproof office and conference area with phones, computers, copiers, printers, plotters, tv, vcr, DVD, PowerPoint projector, private desk for each machine operator.

Vending machine area and break room had "kitchenette" facilities. Bathrooms for each gender were like country club locker rooms (private toilets, showers, dressing rooms, lockers, etc.)

New computer-controlled machines were brought in, arranged in "cells" run by one operator. Operator could program at machine or at his desk.

Operation:
Operators were all on MRB (material review board) in addition to Quality Manager, Finance/Purchasing, Marketing. MRB meetings were held in their conference rooms. If customers or suppliers were invited to MRB, they met there, too.

All training (in-house, machine tool suppliers, outside experts, cutting tool suppliers, heat treaters, platers, etc.) could be conducted on-site. Customers were encouraged to come and meet with operators running their jobs.

We had no quality inspectors (we did have quality trainers and guys who acted as "court of last resort" when a question would arise.) Operators did own first article inspections, based on control plan/inspection plan agreed with customer as part of contract review. Another operator would perform a redundant first article inspection with different inspection instruments. Marked sample with BOTH inspection reports was sent to customer for confirmation before production began.

In-process inspection, SPC, etc. was performed by operator in real time. If nonconformance was discovered, production would halt - all operators would collaborate on finding and curing cause, only calling in outside help if solution eluded them. Inspection records, charts, etc. went right to computer where they were available in real time to in-house folk and customers.

Operators had autonomy to bring in experts from our suppliers of material, capital equipment, and expendable tooling to stay up to date on industry innovation. Sometimes, we shut the whole shop down and chartered a bus to take us to the International Machine Tool Show to spend the day.

If an operator wanted to see a customer's operation and how his product was used, we made it happen. Similarly for a supplier's operation.

Bottom line:
We treated our operators as true partners. We made sure our suppliers and customers understood the power and authority we gave them. In ten years, they never disappointed us. I hope we never disappointed them.

In direct response to your question implied, but never directly asked, in the initial post: "Who is REALLY responsible for 'quality errors'?"

I believe the initial blame goes to the customer who does not make an adequate investigation of a supplier BEFORE committing to a purchase.

Next suspect is the management of the supplier who, during Contract Review (or lack thereof) , do not adequately ensure they understand the customer requirements and compare them realistically to the capability and capacity of their operation before accepting the contract.

Next suspect is the employee who does NOT make his/her own effort to acquire and assimilate Deming's System of Profound Knowledge (SoPK) about his employer's operation, customers, competitors, and suppliers and make a realistic evaluation of his/her place in the big picture. When an employee has SoPK, he can make intelligent suggestions about getting empowerment from managers, regardless if those managers are enlightened. With full knowledge, the employee can make a rational, persuasive case. Without it, EVERYBODY is just bumping around in the dark, where mistakes and errors are expected, not "unexpected."

Any organization where the managers and employees are not part of SoPK is bound to be full of "silos" and "fiefdoms" where folks work for personal gain, often at cross-purposes, instead of for the gain of the organization where EVERYONE has a chance to prosper.

 

[Gordon Clarke]

I’ll try this again as several of the “answers” I feel I’m getting would be typical of a response from a politician or a hungry consultant. By this I mean they are so general (and inoffensive to all) that I don’t see how they can be used in the real world. If it’s me that’s in the wrong then tell me – it is after all a discussion forum – not an auditorium.

"I am sorry, sir, but I am neither. I am just a Quality Manager at a job shop.

Please understand that here in the USA, it is a holiday weekend. The responses you will get today and tommorrow will be minimal. I certainly don't want to discuss work issues in detail today or tommorrow".

Wow CarolX! Was that remark for me or ........? If it was I feel like a kid caught with his hand in the cookie jar!
My remarks (intended for discussion) were not directed at any name given person. If you felt that I meant you, then I've no idea as to what could give you that train of thought.
Of course I don't expect quick replies, in fact I'm just happy when I do get replies. OK, a slight modification, replies that I can work with and maybe you just meant that I should realise the US has holiday weekends. We do here too, in quaint old Europe. Much of my work I also regard as a hobby - I'm just lucky I guess.
I'm (believe it or not) writing this with a smile and hope it is taken in that spirit
Have a great work week when it comes.

 

[AndyN]

Back in the late 90's, the EVP of Manufacturing for Chrysler, Dennis Pawley, said (paraphrased) 'Manufacturing is the powerhouse of the organization - it doesn't matter what gets designed or sold, if manufacturing can't produce it, you have nothing". In principle, I agree! However, having worked in all functions, it's clear to me that businesses need a balance between all functions. Often Sales want to say 'yes' to a customer, but there are no resources in Production etc.

The challenge of the top managers to to keep the organization in balance, so that sales can be satisfied, making production more efficient and so on. Typically, this balance doesn't exist, so there's unbalance towards technical excellence, sales volume, etc.

 

[Gordon Clarke]

I’m not 100% certain who wrote this but I think it was Wes Bucey. My comments are in italics below each paragraph..

In direct response to your question implied, but never directly asked, in the initial post: "Who is REALLY responsible for 'quality errors'?"

So far so good.

I believe the initial blame goes to the customer who does not make an adequate investigation of a supplier BEFORE committing to a purchase.

Unless we’re referring to rocket technology or a multi-million dollar deal, I don’t think the customer should have to “investigate” the supplier. Certainly not for what could be “standard” products. If a customer can’t place an order “in good faith” to a large degree, then the only other solution is that the customer takes over production! To what level of detail should a customer be expected to specify? Although not always the worst quality delivered, orders invariably go to the lowest bid.
My own quote is, “If you’re lucky you get what you pay for, you rarely get more”. Sad, but true.

Next suspect is the management of the supplier who, during Contract Review (or lack thereof) , do not adequately ensure they understand the customer requirements and compare them realistically to the capability and capacity of their operation before accepting the contract.

When you mention “Contract Review” I can see that you do mean multi-million dollar orders (or at least substantial amounts) but I firmly believe (as do several others who have commented in here) that quality must be DESIGNED into the product.

Next suspect is the employee who does NOT make his/her own effort to acquire and assimilate Deming's System of Profound Knowledge (SoPK) about his employer's operation, customers, competitors, and suppliers and make a realistic evaluation of his/her place in the big picture. When an employee has SoPK, he can make intelligent suggestions about getting empowerment from managers, regardless if those managers are enlightened. With full knowledge, the employee can make a rational, persuasive case. Without it, EVERYBODY is just bumping around in the dark, where mistakes and errors are expected, not "unexpected."

I apologise in advance for my next remark but I can’t help it, as I don’t think you spend much time on the shop floor.
My remark is, “I’m sure Deming's System of Profound Knowledge (SoPK)” is what everyone talks about at work before rolling up their sleeves and getting the job done”.

Any organization where the managers and employees are not part of SoPK is bound to be full of "silos" and "fiefdoms" where folks work for personal gain, often at cross-purposes, instead of for the gain of the organization where EVERYONE has a chance to prosper.

The ONLY truly responsible and accountable person is the CEO of the producing company. That’s where the buck stops. If he (or she) wants all to do the right things right, first time, then he (or she) should go forward and set the example.

I’m probably living in another world than you, and by that I mean I associate with everyone at all levels in a company and feel at home in all of them. I've found to my disillusionment that a great many QA advocates are more theoretican than practical. However they do give entertaining lectures.

 

[Wes Bucey]

Turnabout is ALWAYS fair play, so, we'll respond to YOUR items similarly.

I’m not 100% certain who wrote this but I think it was Wes Bucey. My comments are in italics below each paragraph..


So far so good.

So I have captured the flavor of your rant.

Unless we’re referring to rocket technology or a multi-million dollar deal, I don’t think the customer should have to “investigate” the supplier. Certainly not for what could be “standard” products. If a customer can’t place an order “in good faith” to a large degree, then the only other solution is that the customer takes over production! To what level of detail should a customer be expected to specify? Although not always the worst quality delivered, orders invariably go to the lowest bid.
My own quote is, “If you’re lucky you get what you pay for, you rarely get more”. Sad, but true.

I don't care whether you are buying a million-dollar machine tool or a loaf of white bread at the store, if you haven't performed an investigation of the supplier [consistent in effort with your potential loss if the purchase turns out bad] you are really doing a poor job of managing your life, let alone a business upon which others depend for their livelihood.

In some areas of Chicago, New York, Los Angeles. and many other big cities in the USA and other countries as well, there are so-called "food deserts" where major food chains refuse to operate stores and so folks end up (if they don't pay attention) getting overcharged for basics like bread and milk and frequently chancing the purchase of meat and other spoilable goods that have not been kept under optimum storage conditions. Even though it is "inconvenient," the purchasers do not make the effort to save far more than the cost of transportation [and possibly medical bills from eating spoiled food] by traveling just a few miles, even with friends sharing a taxi ride, to shop at a reputable supplier. One only has to look at the weekly food ads in a 50 cent newspaper to realize the major chains are selling FRESH goods for less than the exploiters operating in their neighborhoods.

Bottom line: Yes! It is important to be a smart shopper, whatever the product you purchase. Sometimes it takes EFFORT, but the effort pays off!

The story of "why" the major food chains abandon the food deserts is beyond the scope of the discussion here, but it has the same flavor as suppliers who hire only part-timers and temporary help to avoid paying benefits to workers despite evidence that suppliers who hire full-timers AND supply benefits are still profitable..

When you mention “Contract Review” I can see that you do mean multi-million dollar orders (or at least substantial amounts) but I firmly believe (as do several others who have commented in here) that quality must be DESIGNED into the product.

As you can see from the answer above, I did NOT mean only million dollar purchases!

I apologise in advance for my next remark but I can’t help it, as I don’t think you spend much time on the shop floor.

Actually, over a forty-year career of 60 and 80 hour weeks, I spent a LOT of time on work floors of my own places, customers' places, and suppliers' places - I walked the talk!

My remark is, “I’m sure Deming's System of Profound Knowledge (SoPK)” is what everyone talks about at work before rolling up their sleeves and getting the job done”.

I don't advocate using the term "ISO XXXX" when discussing a quality management system with the managers and staff, but I do discuss concentrating on the gist of what the qms will do for the organization. I do not advocate bandying about the term SoPK or invoking Deming's name, but I do discuss the "big picture" with everyone and I do discuss how they fit in the big picture and I do discuss that their combined eyes, ears, and brains are vital for the success of the organization and, ultimately, that the success of the organization [the way I spread the wealth] will mean an improvement in their lives and fortunes.

The ONLY truly responsible and accountable person is the CEO of the producing company. That’s where the buck stops. If he (or she) wants all to do the right things right, first time, then he (or she) should go forward and set the example.

I agree a CEO is important, but that doesn't mean EVERY CEO is unapproachable and unwilling to listen to a reasoned statement from an employee. At my stage in life, I've dealt with literally hundreds of CEOs face to face in business and non business settings. I freely admit some of them are jerks, plain and simple. Many of the real jerks ultimately crash and burn, some really do elude justice. An employee who practices SoPK unbidden by the CEO will soon recognize an inept CEO and find a way to extricate himself. Without SoPK, the employee is doomed to the same sort of surprise thousands of ENRON employees experienced when Ken Lay and his CEO, Skilling, masterminded the debacle that was ENRON. Oddly, we don't hear much about the smart "rats" who fled the sinking ship while their jobs and feeding stations were still above the waterline!

I’m probably living in another world than you, and by that I mean I associate with everyone at all levels in a company and feel at home in all of them. I've found to my disillusionment that a great many QA advocates are more theoretican than practical. However they do give entertaining lectures.

I do give entertaining lectures (http://elsmar.com/Forums/calendar.php?do=getinfo&e=282&day=2009-2-11&c=1) - ask anyone who has attended one, but my lectures and presentations are built on actual, proven practice, not wild-eyed theory. I have always advocated a "management by walking around" practice. Read my posts!

 

[Gordon Clarke]

Hello Wes Bucey,

I'm going to try and avoid quoting you in my reply and give my thoughts on what you wrote.

We live on different continents and this could explain why my thoughts on several issues aren't "American". That remark is in no way intended negatively, or for that matter possitively. Just a fact.

I've been to the US several times (in fact my parents went to live in Maryland shortly after I moved to Denmark) so I'm not unfamiliar with the "way of life" over there. It wasn't just visits for vacational purposes visiting my parents, as I've mentioned I worked as quality engineer on the F-16 fighter plane order to several European countries (Denmark, Holland and Norway) back in the late 70ties.

Now to my "point". The USA is not just "one" country - it is 50 states each with their own little quirks and customs - just as each state isn't identical all over. In Europe the difference is even greater between each country and each region within the various countries.

In the southern part of Europe (Italy etc.), and a few of the former East European block countries there are mafia-like organisations and the "food scenario" you give could easily find place there. In the north of Europe (Scandinavia as a whole, Germany, Holland etc.) is vitually free from bribery and corruption. I'm NOT saying it never happens or couldn't happen - just rare enough to make the headlines when it does

The Bill Clinton, Monica thing masde the news in Europe, but not for the same reason as in the US. Almost all Europeans were amazed at how much focus the media placed on what should have been a private issue between Bill and Hillary. No one need comment on that btw, old news

Many American (at least those that have the money) usually buy German cars because of the quality - and the Germans do make good cars. However for the last 5 years or so when the German auto authorities register complaint and faults found on vehicles (Germans register just about everything ) Japanese cars come in as numbers 1 and 2 on the "least number of faults on new cars" list.

As I've also mentioned, I'm pro-American but the perfect country just doesn't exist on this planet. There's alway room for improvement.

In conclusion (in this I feel rather incoherant reply) I think our differences are fewer than our similarities.

This isn't meant as a "nosy" question - just genuine curiosity - which make of car do you and your family drive? I drive a Ford and my wife a Toyota If my heart made the choice (and not my head) then I'd drive a Jaguar! Preferably XJ series.

 

[ScottK]

What I am looking for is, if anyone know what to do when quality suffers because several department pursue different goals and top management is passive.

Either be the change agent they need or move on.

I fight this with internal auditing with experienced auditors.
That leaves us with no-BS, objective evidence of people not following procedures and/or missing links between processes.
It presents data that top management cannot ignore and nowhere for process owners to hide.

 

[Gordon Clarke]

It won't make you friends but does it make many enemies?

 

[CarolX]

I’ll try this again as several of the “answers” I feel I’m getting would be typical of a response from a politician or a hungry consultant. By this I mean they are so general (and inoffensive to all) that I don’t see how they can be used in the real world. If it’s me that’s in the wrong then tell me – it is after all a discussion forum – not an auditorium.

Wow CarolX! Was that remark for me or ........? If it was I feel like a kid caught with his hand in the cookie jar!
My remarks (intended for discussion) were not directed at any name given person. If you felt that I meant you, then I've no idea as to what could give you that train of thought.

Not directed at me - but this did appear to be directed at everyone who responded to your question.

Great, but who (or what) do you find is the biggest "sinner"? Could you give me an example of a typical corrective action outlining the problem and "solution" - without hanging your company out to dry
I suppose in many companies it will depend on what is actually "produced" as to who or what the biggest sinner is.

Without a doubt - most of the problems are traced back to sales and engineering. An example would be - we had parts rejected by our customer for missing parts. Our root cause determined that the print was so unclear - even I could make this mistake. And we told the customer this without the risk of feeling like we would be "hanging our company out to dry".