| Author | Message | ||
     Reepicheep |
Based on my personal experience... "Quality is a delighted customer" would work great if you have the engineers in charge. Let the sales guys seize control, and you are screwed. They will sell the farm... (and get a crappy deal for it to boot). | ||
| Blake |
Good delineation Hugh. I agree. From a purely manufacturing perspective, quality is the same as conformance. My background is less mass production, more specialized proposals, lots of engineering and one-off or limited production type products. In that arena, the technical proposal is the first and arguably most vital factor in end-product quality. If the proposal (initial definition of the product as understood by the manufacturer) is not high quality, then the end product will likely suffer. The same goes for the customer's specification (customer's own definition of the product that they want/need). Many times, in one-off product scenarios, the customer does a poor job of defining what they need. In that case, high quality, a product that does what the customer needs it to do, depends on the bid manager being more knowledgeable than the customer. There once was a satellite radio venture; it was a very, ahem "Serious" ahem, business venture that specified an uplink system, four earth stations atop a Rockefeller center in NYC tasked with tracking and uplinking to four spacecraft having highly elliptical orbits. The idea was that multiple birds (spacecraft/satellites) in staggered elliptical orbits would avoid the issue of shadowing (signal blockage due to buildings and such). Pretty cool idea. The spacecraft were already built, some already launched and in orbit. The system was so horribly mis-defined by the customer that we had to develop new technology just to have a chance to support the program. The standard product salesman who originally bid the job had no clue--he had no business bidding it in the first place, but mgt was apparently equally clueless, and he was a good employee who did as he was tasked--didn't catch the customer's goof. The job got dumped onto the program manager (PM) only after the job was awarded. He noted the issue immediately. As the PM was giving the customer a tour of the factory, the customer was bragging about how much cash they had ready to hit the ground running, hundreds of millions of dollars for state of the art satellites, launches, and the earth stations to control and beam programming to them. His expression turned somewhat when the PM explained to him that as defined, his uplink earth stations would be unable to reliably maintain a communications link with his satellites. The tracking beacon frequency was WAY too low to keep the much narrower beams of the higher frequency comms signals peaked on the birds. The birds were already up or built. There was no changing their configuration. We managed to figure a fairly reliable work-around, developing a whole new tracking scheme working in constant comms with the much larger control stations. Never been done before, at least not commercially. A proper technical sales manager would have caught the issue right off. So how do you define quality when the product you deliver meets all customer specs, conforms to all manufacturing specifications, but fails miserably to perform its intended function? Quality starts with the guy who initially outlines the definition of the product. As a customer, I can define a knife to have a 0.02" thick hardened steel blade, take bids and award the job. The vendor/manufacturing can build the to perfection. It may be sharp as a razor. Is it high quality when someone purchases and tries to use the knife finds that the cutting edge chips horribly or the blade bends and breaks in normal use? From manufacturing's perspective, the vendor achieved perfect quality. From the end customer's perspective, not so much. That satellite radio provider mentioned earlier? They are still in business and remain very ahem, "serious", ahem. Interestingly, they are now launching a new satellite that will be placed in geostationary instead of highly elliptical orbit. Cost is in the hundreds of millions. Oops? (Message edited by blake on December 08, 2009) | ||
| Blake |
Geez. Bill just said in three sentences what took me a dozen paragraphs. Jerk!  | ||
| Reg_kittrelle |
I'm enjoying this thread more than most, because we seem to actually be reaching a consensus of sorts. Hugh...'s comment, 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." ...and Blake's, " From a purely manufacturing perspective, quality is the same as conformance. " ...define my thinking. My approach to these things can be pedantic in that I view EVERYTHING as involving a process and, as such, is measurable. Blake.. "So how do you define quality when the product you deliver meets all customer specs, conforms to all manufacturing specifications, but fails miserably to perform its intended function?" The problem in that scenario is with the customer's spec; it was faulty. But I believe a good engineering organization would have caught its faults during the development process. Unfortunately, this often does NOT happen, and we get crap for product. | ||
| Jlnance |
I thinking about these discussions, I realize that we may need a term for "technological art." I've heard people lament over cars "they don't build them like they used to." Which is certainly true. A modern car will go 250,000 miles while requiring only gas, oil, tires, and brake pads in the way of service. A 57 Chevy will not do that. Undoubtedly, my Toyota Corolla is a higher quality vehicle than a 57 Chevy by any objective measure except perhaps HP. But the Corolla is not a very inspiring car, while the Chevy is a legend. There is nothing wrong with preferring the inspiring car. But it gets confusing because a lot of people use the word quality to describe what they like about the car. The truth is a lot of what makes it inspiring are in direct contradiction to many of the formal definitions of quality. | ||
| Jlnance |
I'm enjoying this discussion too Reg. The problem in that scenario is with the customer's spec; it was faulty. The conformance to spec definition works best for contract work, where you actually get to produce a spec, and can tell if the resulting product meets it. It looses a bit in the realm of consumer products. The Ulysses was not built to my specifications. I can't even find out what specifications it was built to, they are trade secrets. I can dig some of them out by reading product reviews and inspecting the bike, but that just scratches the surface. I've often wondered what the design life of the XB engine is. I'm sure it has one, but I've never been able to find out what it is. | ||
| Reg_kittrelle |
Jim... Excellent point re contract work vis a vis consumer products. One of the problems I see with consumer products is that in order to reach the widest audience the product is often compromised to the point of satisfying no one. To my mind, the most inspired, and inspiring, products are those which reflect the singular vision of one person. And that is at the core of my appreciation of the Buell product. Your Ulysses comment is pertinent to me as I'm just about to plunk down a piece of change for one. And the life cycle of that motor is of particular interest to me. | ||
| Rocketman |
I've heard people lament over cars "they don't build them like they used to." Which is certainly true. A modern car will go 250,000 miles while requiring only gas, oil, tires, and brake pads in the way of service. A 57 Chevy will not do that. Undoubtedly, my Toyota Corolla is a higher quality vehicle than a 57 Chevy by any objective measure except perhaps HP. But the Corolla is not a very inspiring car, while the Chevy is a legend. I don't know of any Corolla that's lasted 50 years. Rocket | ||
| Trackdad |
Hey I DO know of a 1986 MR2 thats still cruising the streets of Minnesota and at times the road of Sconieville! | ||
| Davegess |
Quality versus reliability. I don't think these are the same things. The definition of quality as meeting the spec is correct I think as is the idea that if the spec is incorrect you are in trouble before you start. Something can be very reliable and be low quality. Think a cheap digital watch, not a quality object but man do they do a nice job of telling time. You can also confuse quality with craftsmanship. The Bimota, like many other hand made things is very high in craftsmanship BUT this does not result in reliability. A 1960 Toyota is more reliable than a 1960 Rolls Royce BUT it is not made with the same level of quality materials nor is hand built. That Bimota is a great example of quality components, excellent craftsmanship and wonderful design. I would bet a pretty good sum of money that a GSXR will run more hard miles between breakdowns. Craftsmanship and hand built imply a certain variability as no human can do the same task over and over exactly the same. the more complicated the task the more variability comes in. Variability is an enemy o f reliability. Erik has said fro a very long time that you have to design the item so that it can’t be put together wrong and so that reliability is in the design not the inspection. One of the reasons the old tubers were so poor in reliably is that they were essentially designed to be hand built in small numbers. Heck this is the same reason AMF Harleys had so many troubles; they were designed to be built at a much slower rate than AMF was building them. Parts needed to be fit together and the guy on the line had to make sure it fit properly and if not correct it. When the time to do this was removed and the bike was not redesigned to allow faster assembly BOOM you had very bad reliability. As production line rates went up the tubers became harder to build and reliability suffered. The tubers were also very much kit bikes. Parts had to be bought off the shelf or made using tooling we could afford so some of them were lower quality. Sometimes what is perceived as higher quality is not. Another good Buell example is the triple clamps. All the early ones are very pretty machined from billet pieces. Very nice. The later forged (maybe cast but I think not) pieces are lighter and stronger. Which one is higher quality? | ||
| Doerman |
Another aspect of judging quality gets muddied discussing a product we are passionate about. If it is just a consumer item, then quality is judged by: -- works/breaks -- does the job as advertised/does not When we buy something we are passionate about, we might set prior expectations that were not designed in and can not be met. That'll ruin the day. I think this "quality discussion" revolves around the passionate purchase - like a motorcycle. So slicker! Howzit going getting to the quick of that Buell Mission Statement?  I love BadWeB! (Message edited by doerman on December 08, 2009) | ||
| Blake |
"To my mind, the most inspired, and inspiring, products are those which reflect the singular vision of one person. And that is at the core of my appreciation of the Buell product. " I heartily concur! | ||
| Slaughter |
Quality? Good Steak? Good grilled fish? Good sushi? Which is higher quality? | ||
| Court |
I have two watches. One is a Rolex the other is a Seiko. The Seiko is more reliable and keeps more accurate time (most the time). Which would you say is the higher quality? Now . . . I confess that I bought the Rolex 23 years ago and it's never been off. Flying, SCUBA diving, jackhammering in the bottom of drilled piers and being drug on pavement changing oil. I've been through perhaps 6 of the Seikos (not a big deal at $11 each) . . . . There is an element of fitness for purpose I suppose. | ||
| Jaimec |
Where'd you get a Seiko for only $11??? I have the best of both worlds... a Tudor. Rolex quality with accuracy that puts even Seiko to shame.  I originally bought it to be a "Dress Watch" only but the thing is so solidly built (and so thin and light weight) that I wear it all the time. It still looks new (that sapphire crystal is damned near indestructible from what I can determine) whereas my Seiko looks like it's been through a war. | ||
| Bills3t |
Quality is when a product exceeds a customers needs and expectations . It could be cupcakes, hand grenades or watches. Quality is always subjective and based on the customer view. A product made to spec with no flaws is defect free , but still might not be what the customer wanted . | ||
| Bills3t |
Quality is when a product exceeds a customers needs and expectations . It could be cupcakes, hand grenades or watches. Quality is always subjective and based on the customer view. A product made to spec with no flaws is defect free , but still might not be what the customer wanted . | ||
| Delta_one |
apples and oranges my friend
with only this info I would say the Seiko but when you add this
I would go to the Rolex if its the same use/abuse that kills the Seiko when the Rolex keeps on ticking.
YES!! a lamp may be made to spec with no flaws but if it burns up when you plug it in the quality just isn't there. quality is more than what happens in the plant that manufactures it. it starts on a drawing board and concludes with actual product testing. (as far as most company's are concerned) but some better company's take in data from customer's and from real world use and develop better products based on this. quality I believe can be defined by intended use but cannot necessarily be quantified. if you were to look at two items intended for the same purpose (or better yet use them) I bet you could tell me what one is higher quality and why, but I don't think you could put a percentage to it. | ||
| Rainman |
I have a $23 Timex from Kmart. It keeps pretty good time, too. Works great. Looks decent. No one is going to try and rob me of it. I guess there's a certain quality to that. | ||
| Jlnance |
I have two watches. One is a Rolex the other is a Seiko. The Seiko is more reliable and keeps more accurate time (most the time). Which would you say is the higher quality? I would say the Seiko. The Rolex wins on style. | ||
| Moxnix |
I bought a gold bubble back post-WW2 Rolex it in a hock shop in Seattle about 1971, for $75. Traded in Berlin 15 years later for a collection of copper plate etchings from behind the Iron Curtain. Still have them. Bought a stainless dress Rolex in a different hock shop about the same time. $75. Fine watch, until it got crushed between two crab pots in the Bering Sea a few years later. Gave the carcass to my squeeze's brother, he had it rebuilt & still wears it. Bought a Rolex Diving watch in Hong Kong for $247 in 1977, wore out two bands, the last one costing more than the original watch, traded it 15 years later for an original Fontana 4-shoe brake for my 1972 XRTT, instead of paying the $1700 asking. Don't miss them. Wore an inherited Seiko chronograph until the jewelers could no longer find gaskets and parts for the old models. Can't remember what brand of watch is on top of the refrigerator. It was a gift. It tells time. So does my cell phone. So does my computer. Time is just a human invention anyway. And never buy a Rolex from a gypsy. My electrical engineer uncle once told me: a consultant is someone who borrows your watch to tell you what time it is. That's irrelevant, but true. So, is all this timely word work going to lead we folk to the Mission Statement? | ||
| Los5445 |
I am not an engineer but I learned a valuable lesson from my best friend's grandfather, an old jewish man in his 80's. His comment to me was, "If you have to buy, spend the money, buy good, and buy once." I would like to think that in buying my Ulysses I have done just this. My wifes SS was bought second hand and runs as nicely as my new Uly. Speaking of perceived quality versus actual as in your Corrola comments, I have a 96 Ford Explorer that with only nominal care is still running at 211K, and my wife's Expedition is doing well at 115K. | ||
| Slaughter |
... and our Saturn SC1 is STILL getting 40MPG at 310,000 miles! | ||
| Iamarchangel |
Court: a good smith should have asked about the temper you required. That is part of the skill you are buying. Which was part of your point. (oho point, knife, get it? Sorry.) Grenade: you don't want that to exceed customer specs. It must meet them right on. A bigger blast or a delayed fuse can be fatal. Maxnix: you're scaring me when you seem to be agreeing with my perspectives. I don't know if Deming is the enemy or the interpreters of his work are. In any case, it doesn't seem like anybody is noticing that the second formula is the one that is generally followed. ... and my Saturn SL wouldn't go into 1st from neutral most of the time but let's not go there. | ||
| Moxnix |
I.M. Archangel--Deming isn't much of anyone's enemy. His system produced quality at optimum manufacturing costs. Remember, when he went to Japan they made a lot of crap. Now they sell Lexus and Seikos. I don't think his systems worked quite so well in the US, except for a period at Ford when they adjusted their metabolism, which they seem to be doing again. Problem being, too many people in lower management have low self esteem and take it out on their underlings by being overbearing ogres. Workers do not react well to that. People in upper management just go by dollar figures and bonuses for stock price targets. By creating an atmosphere to generate quality in production of quality products, low failure rates, etc., their companies could do even better, IM(not-so-humble)O. I liked playing with variations of the Hawthorne Effect in public service, using it when people got complacent. Works a treat. Archangel, this week I'm ruminating a bit from Ludwig Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus: "The sense of the world must lie outside the world. In the world everything is as it is and happens as it does happen. In it there is no value--and if there were, it would be of no value. If there is a value which is of value, it must lie outside all happening and being-so. For all happening and being-so is accidental. What makes it non-accidental cannot lie in the world, for otherwise this would again be accidental. It must lie outside the world." Perhaps Wittgenstein spend too many hours pawing through gnostic manuscripts. Oddly, when I first read the above bit, it reminded me of a row one evening in a Viennese coffeehouse, the Demar, when a chap jumped up at a neighboring table, slapped his hand on it and shouted, "You ARE your own reality!" Of course, the first thought to spin in my coco was: You create your own reality. Anyway, Wittgenstein was a Vienner, so maybe it was just something in the water . . . Kind regards, | ||
| Iamarchangel |
I'd say Deming's issues go back to your first post. The people applying it are not applying what he taught. And then Imai takes Deming's phrases, translates them into Japanese and brings them back to America as a new religion almost. And then things go down the toilet for much of the reasons you mentioned. Wittgenstein would enjoy this discussion about quality. It pretty well follows his whole essay about language: we're all generally agreeing on a concept we can't quite define. Which leads us to the end of his paper, the part the chap in your story missed: what was there before the other person realized/created their own reality? The question Wittgenstein posed wasn't about "reality" so much as how do we talk about a concept like reality. | ||
| Jlnance |
Something can be very reliable and be low quality. That is a very profound statement. I'm not sure I agree with it, but it definitely sums up a lot of issues. Is the reverse true? Can something be of high quality and be unreliable? Unreliable when compared to a similar item which we judge as having lower quality? (to be continued after work ...) | ||
| Crusty |
You can't put a price on worthlessness. | ||
| Hughlysses |
Is the reverse true? Can something be of high quality and be unreliable? Unreliable when compared to a similar item which we judge as having lower quality? Certainly, using the "quality = conformance to requirements" definition. For instance, something like a Yugo could have met 100% of its design specifications and blown up ~10 miles into its first drive. OTOH the vast majority of consumers would certainly NOT consider that a "quality" product. | ||
| Milt |
All products are quality products. Most are low quality. |
