| Author | Message | ||
     Delta_one |
unpopular with me too I don't care what the company's spec was so long as the product fulfills its intended use. If I buy a radio that wont tune in the stations it was meant for I'll call it a crappy product. whether it was crap by design or failure to follow specs I don't care. the end result is a failure to function as intended. quality control is designed to maintain tolerances within specifications, but just because it is in spec doesn't make it good. this is also a common cost control measure. conversely being out of spec also doesn't always make it bad. | ||
| Reg_kittrelle |
J... I don't find that at odds with what I saying. In the case you cite the spec was wrong because the design engineer had faulty data to work with, e.g., the use profile of the rear wheel was faulty. I believe it is the design engineer's responsibility to know and understand the use to which the product will be put. Delta... "... as long as the product fulfills its intended use." That is, or should be, the information on which the manufacturing specifications are determined. An example of where a spec was at odds with the use profile can be found with the insufficient steering lock on the original Ulysses. "... but just because it is in spec, doesn't make it good." Correct, and I never stated otherwise. When most people talk "quality" they are speaking emotionally. Bimota, as mentioned by Rocket, is an example of this. We think of this as a "high quality" machine because of its exotic design, excellent performance figures, high price, and beautiful bits and pieces that resonate with the gearhead in us. From an ME's standpoint, the overall performance picture would have to be known in order to call it a quality product. That is, does the motorcycle perform to the same level as the specifications dictated? Certainly, acceleration and speed are part of the picture, but also mpg, reliability, and maintenance cycles, are part of the equation to determine quality. To the end user, this issues are moot... until something goes wrong. ...and just because I love to read Rocket's posts: If given a choice between a Bimota DB7 and a Buell Ulysses XB12XT, for a cross-country trip, I'd take the Buell. Why? (comfort issues aside)Because I believe the XB is more likely to get me to New York (from CA) than would the Bimota. | ||
| Crusty |
Yeah, but you could sit and stare at the beautifully crafted bits on the DB7 while you were waiting for the tow truck. | ||
| Rocketman |
Reg, I chose the Bimota not because I like it, but because I recognise it as a very highly engineered motorcycle which from an engineering standpoint, or let's be a little more layman, a production standpoint, is hard to argue it has not been built to perhaps the highest standard one could expect from any low volume motorcycle manufacturer. I could have picked a Confederate if it pleases. I might have preferred to pick an F1 racing car, but some would argue the F1 would have to be the winner, unbeatable then, to be of the utmost quality. I think in production terms I might have preferred a McLaren F1 road car to prove the point that quality is either the pinnacle of development, be it a car, Biro, motorcycle or cardboard box, and anything less than pinnacle becomes subjective. The argument is not for quality but how we perceive quality. In that, the manufacturer 'gets away' with much if the consumer is to believe the quality exists merely because it satisfies as a product and the manufacturer at the very least reached the required standard said to be of a certain quality. I suspect Bimota, unlike most other manufacturers of higher volume motorcycles rise to a higher quality. Once again, we see the subject is subjective. Is there no getting away from it? Which is why I choose to say 'the pinnacle of technology' or some other crap that means the same. Only then may we all agree and subjectiveness is no longer possible. Rocket | ||
| Delta_one |
 (Message edited by delta_one on December 06, 2009) | ||
| Delta_one |
"pinnacle of technology" speaks more to "advanced" in my mind and less to quality. I think that my old 77 new yorker from high school was of higher quality than what I drive now. side by side the new yorker is higher quality in my mind though it is not as advanced. but I see where you are going here. the general populace fails to make these distinctions. | ||
| Rocketman |
I don't see where the unreliability might exists if we are to be serious. The Ducati motor has come a long way and gained brilliant reliability over the years. If all else wrapped around the Ducati motor is much of the best of the best, reliability is never really going to be an issue. I'd wager it would be every bit as reliable as any Buell. If not more so. That is after all what quality brings us isn't it. Rocket | ||
| Blake |
There's a LOT more to product quality than what may be addressed in the manufacturing phase. | ||
| Iamarchangel |
I have a hard time with the flasher example. Generally, any company that's going to put out manufacturing specs is going to put out material specs too. So quality is quality. Bimota example brings out another qualifier. Sort of like the difference between honour and prestige: one you earn, the other you buy. A shim from a coke can will fix an issue the same as a OEM shim. One means you ride, the other means you walk and wait. (Stole the example from Zen and the Art of...) The shipyard example is right on the money. Why do employers keep trying to reinvent the wheel? I'm not going there. I'll rant... Blake is right. Pretty well all the quality issues should be decided before the manufacturing starts. Doing it on the fly can only be justified in combat situations. And despite manufacturers try to impart, in NA, they're not in a combat situation. | ||
| Delta_one |
if one watch company specifies glass or poly-carb faces with plastic cases. and another chooses to specify sapphire crystal faces and stainless bodies. then there is a difference in material specs and the quality inherent in the design. each may be manufactured perfectly within spec but I would put more faith in the steel watch than the plastic for quality. | ||
| Jaimec |
Reg: I've no doubt the Bimota would get you there too. Just hope you have the number of a good chiropractor once you arrive, that's all... | ||
| Rocketman |
I chose the flasher example because the tube framers came with them in 1998 and thereabouts, and they were subject to one of those dealer warranty recall issues. Mine failed. It was made in Spain. A Bosch item made in Germany would have cost more. I understood it then, and now. A corner seemingly cut cost more in the end. It matters not. It stood up to my point. A better 'quality' in the first place would have prevented extra cost later through recall. Quality is still subjective. Some may still have the original flasher working well and be unaware of others that failed. They might say the quality is fine. I wouldn't. I had reason to believe otherwise. Still subjective. Rocket | ||
| Rocketman |
There's a LOT more to product quality than what may be addressed in the manufacturing phase. That seems like a huge candidate for subjectivity in itself. Never mind whether quality itself is subjective. I think one of the barriers presented here is you can't argue quality with an engineer as they work to the standard which says that's where the quality exists. Take away the engineer and quality is subjective without argument. With no engineer there is no standard. Who's to say what and where quality exists? Sorry but I absolutely refuse to accept that quality is anything but subjective. Show me quality and I'll show you higher quality. The subjective is in the understanding. It isn't necessarily in the product. Quality can exist, and does, at many levels. What quality satisfies is subjective. I seek more, or less quality, than someone else might. The quality's still there. The subjective is in the satisfaction, or not. Rocket | ||
| Doerman |
Rocket..well written. However,start separating high functioning from high quality. A low functioning component can be high quality and a high functioning component can be low quality. | ||
| Rocketman |
I thought I did that by mention of a Biro, cardboard box, flasher relay etc etc. Perhaps because I chose the Bimota it's how you perceive it as a motorcycle, which is not why I chose it. Imagine if it were for display purposes only, to show off the craftsmanship of its manufacturer, and the engine were a dummy. Is it still high functioning, not as a motorcycle, but as a pinnacle of engineering capability its makers want to show off? Seems 'function' too is subjective, lol. Rocket | ||
| Rainman |
Dang, I think I just read the Cliff Notes version of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. Isn't that Pirsig's whole argument, that quality cannot be defined? Quality is anything that doesn't break down.... | ||
| Cityxslicker |
My Grand father had a word or two about it that seemed to stick with me, concerning Jaguars... "They are an elite handcrafted performance sportscar, like no other on the planet, too bad they dont work with a g-damn" He had a garage full of XK's, for 'parts' when he needed them. He was a serious enthusiast of Jag, but I only ever saw it run once. Not sure how much of that was the car, versus supply, versus parts quality, versus mechanic ability... I would never own a Jag... but damn they are sexy to look at. | ||
| Iamarchangel |
 | ||
| Blake |
Rocket has a point. I'd say what Reg defined is more "compliance" or "conformance" rather than "quality". The aim of conformance to standards and specifications is to achieve high quality. Some measures of quality... Reliability Availability Comfort Ease of use Performance equal to or exceeding that advertised. The quality of a product or service begins with its initial definition. For instance if Marketing dictates to engineering that they must produce a 1200cc air-cooled, 45 degree V-Twin, common crank-pin, pushrod motorcycle engine that produces 165 HP and weighs less than 160 LB within strict budgetary constraints, engineering will absolutely find a way to do it. Manufacturing will build it per the engineering plans, and their manufacturing quality will be exceptional. But when the customers get it, the engines blow up after the first 2,000 miles. Back to the drawing board to improve the "quality". The engine design is revised and on goes the process. | ||
| Cityxslicker |
Holy bag of burning Cr@P! I didnt mean to open up a can of discord. I was just trying to get at the archived Mission statement from Buell as it appeared 10-1-2009 prior to H-D's 'decision' Theres a nice book out there on Motorcycles and Quality..."Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" And the other of my favs Walden, though not specifically on just Quality. | ||
| Reg_kittrelle |
I don't know that we're disagreeing here. It seems to come down to semantics more than anything else. My training dictated that quality is measurable and, as such, is not subjective. I see various other interpretations of quality here. When the writer explains their definition, I usually agree, based upon their perspective. That, however, does not change my definition of quality as being adherence/conformance to spec. I also see this as an endless discussion... fun tho! | ||
| Imonabuss |
"Conformity to specs" is one way to measure quality. But what if the specs are wrong? "Specs can't be wrong!" Well what if they are the ones customers don't want? And what if the specs are constantly changing? Actually sounds like the real world of today, and why the latest version of ISO is no longer about conformity to procedures. So actually in my opinion, Iamarchangel is pretty close to right. But since we're all on a death march anyhow, why not do it with a purpose? If the purpose is delighting a certain group of customers, then at least you're not marching alone. Of course if it was a death swin you could do it with a porpoise. Nyuck nyuck. | ||
| Blake |
Groan! Reg, Were you "measuring" quality, or pass/fail checking for conformance? | ||
| Iamarchangel |
Here's my two concerns as I watch manufacturing disappear: 1. The principle of diminishing returns is ignored. Consequently companies become penny-wise and pound foolish (British maxim but you get the drift). 2. There is now a whole sub-industry around quality that does not "add value" to the product. in fact, it adds more expense. Anyway, it's a fun discussion to have, just for the halibut. r r r | ||
| Court |
Interesting discussion with a fascinating breadth of viewpoints. Perspective is important. The "Quality is a delighted customer" mantra . . . shifts the quality decision from manufacturing conformance to customer perception. It would require that a number of other quality parameters, starting with initial engineering and continuing through sourcing, manufacturing and the sales experience, all fall in line. I really enjoy these discussions and have learned deriving a universal definition, ignoring perspective, is akin to nailing Jell-o to the wall. Not even our |link{http://www.asq.org/learn-about-quality/basic-conce pts.html, members} agree, Most the QA/QC work we do in building power plants falls along the lines of what Reg has described. Someone engineers a specification. My team makes sure the specification actually got to the manufacturer, that they understand it and have the capacity to conform, when it arrives we once again confirm everything and then commence an entire series of installation specs, tests, documentation and running down NCRs. We get one additional item tossed in as we have hundreds of pieces that must be "maintained" while awaiting installation . . . i have parts that have to have temporary heat while store, that have to be humidity controlled and lots of pieces that have to be rotated at intervals to keep shafts and bearings "live". I enjoy seeing how different folks view this. Interesting note . . . a lot of Construction QA/QC history comes from Australia. No clue as to why but several of the best technical books I have are from Oz. | ||
| Hughlysses |
Blake- in the Phillip Crosby quality training that Reg mentions above, the first thing they do in the class is to go around the room and ask all the participants to define "quality". As I recall pretty much everyone in the room had a different definition, but most tended to be a subjective definition. Like Reg says, most of our argument here is semantics. From a manufacturing standpoint, it is useful to define quality as "conformance to requirements". In the real world (i.e.- trying to sell products to customers), Buell's mission statement is probably much more useful. | ||
| Ponti1 |
It seems to me that quality can only be measured against pre-defined goals and expectations. In those terms, quality either does or does not achieve a rating of "satisfactory". Everything else is, for the most part, going to be subjective since it was not a pre-determined. | ||
| Iamarchangel |
Aha, Ponti1 has brought up another of my peeves, which I have already alluded to: "satisfactory" What is the real life difference between "satisfactory" and "excellent"? The "myth of excellence" is another drain on manufacturing. It is possible to satisfy a need, and build in a satisfactory safety margin, without being "excellent". The "conforming to requirements" principle of the late '80s discussed satisfaction. The later training of the '90s pushed excellence. I think that difference in philosophy, without any significant difference to consumers, has lead to the sad position of NA manufacturing today. | ||
| Doerman |
It has been a few years ago now when I held a responsible position in Quality Assurance in a major software company. Lessons learned: - you can't test enough to get quality in (plus it is the expensive route) - quality has to be architected in up front So if plans change much during development (customer or internally driven), the unintended consequence is quality suffers. | ||
| Moxnix |
So, okay, I know how to cut & paste, but I also have books on The Deming System in the shelves. Dr. W. Edwards Deming Philosophy Synopsis (Deming was the author of Out of the Crisis (1982–1986) and The New Economics for Industry, Government, Education (1993), which includes his System of Profound Knowledge and the 14 Points for Management----- The philosophy of W. Edwards Deming has been summarized as follows: "Dr. W. Edwards Deming taught that by adopting appropriate principles of management, organizations can increase quality and simultaneously reduce costs (by reducing waste, rework, staff attrition and litigation while increasing customer loyalty). The key is to practice continual improvement and think of manufacturing as a system, not as bits and pieces." In the 1970s, Dr. Deming's philosophy was summarized by some of his Japanese proponents with the following 'a'-versus-'b' comparison: (a) When people and organizations focus primarily on quality, defined by the following ratio, Quality = Result of Work Efforts Divided by Total Costs quality tends to increase and costs fall over time. (b) However, when people and organizations focus primarily on costs, costs tend to rise and quality declines over time. |
