No, the example is yet again a reduction in the level of the standard
(or perhaps a loss of QC in the implementation of what a standard might
still be if, in fact, there hasn't been a formal redefinition of a
In the former you're mixing up something like the "5-sigma" _level_ of
quality w/ QC as a technique. The two are a separate pieces of the total.
While retired, in former life I was member of ASQC (as well as ASA, ANS
and various others) and QC was a part of my consulting gig. The
definitions of QC have _NOT_ changed; and in fact Mickey D's is quite a
serious implementor of QC. That they have a product that you and others
like to poke at isn't the same thing; they do an excellent job of
maintaining their product at the desired point which is the object of QC.
Again, if they were a 5-star cuisine organization the same principles
would serve just as well with only a different set of measures.
And, more specifically, if the dealership has determined that owing to
cost pressures or other factors that they have a 75% goal and are
achieving that; that is achieving a QC goal.
Now that that carries with it a lower level of customer satisfaction is
likely a concomitant cost. The question then is where the overall
balance is in profitability, etc., and if management has made that
decision that's a choice. Given current cost pressures many have done
such and it's even more difficult in businesses having to deal with
cheap imported goods or the ilk than in service industries owing to
factors outside their direct control.
OTOH, if the goal is still nominally 100% because the program hasn't
actually been modified but they're only achieving 75, then the
organization is failing. Such things happen quite a lot, unfortunately,
for several reasons. The largest reason (by far) for such failures I
saw in the consulting gig was loss of commitment by management.
Now that there are a lot of organizations that are lowering the level of
the quality standard given economic pressures; particularly as noted in
response to cheap import goods I'll not disagree but it isn't
necessarily the same thing as QC itself not being good; W-M is another
cheap outfit that does extremely tight control on less expensive goods.
Seems like the airlines are having BIG problems with the QC of the
aircraft maintenance. 75% doesn't make if for me.
I know, I know ... you addressed it further _down_, but I just couldn't
bring myself to use that word in that context!
We are old school and we stick to what is right. If you look up the words
Quality and Control you do not come up with a definition that describes what
today's interpretation is. Today's meaning is simply a way of
It seems to sell alot of stuff in the market place today actually. But
I prefered with the stuff work out of the box 100% of the time. That
is not the case you test 13 out of a thousand if they pass send them
to the warehouse.
Bought any home video, a radio, small kitchen appliances.
Actually I test nada now, except for what I buy. Use to test
electronics, after I fixed the production that did not work.
But testing at assembly works, sampling works well for electronic
components but still relies upon use in pcb to weed out the bad ones.
I remember one of the support engineers walking into a meeting at
Enormous Aerospace with a box of parts that had our part numbers and our
logos and our QC marks and all sorts of other identification on them,
that had absolutely no resemblance to the parts that we produced that
bore those marks. I mean in some cases they were so far off that it was
like seeing a rock with a Bosch label and logos and the identification
plate for one of their jigsaws attached. The things were ostensibly
spares for some of our older equipment and had been returned by
customers who had bought them as surplus from third party suppliers.
The issue at hand was whether we had produced them and one glance said
At that point things moved to a higher level, with the FAA and the FBI
getting involved and all that was way above my pay grade so I have no
idea what the outcome was, but presumably whoever was making these
things was shut down.
Our QC goal was 100% correct when the vehicle went out the door. QC
rejected about 12% and returned the vehicle to the technician to rectify
before the customer took possession. In addition we had a satisfaction
survey with immediate follow up phone calls to each and every customer that
had their vehicle serviced. Our satisfaction rating was ALWAYS above 95%
achieved and we encouraged the customer to return the vehicle if there was a
problem, and if necessary offered a free loaner car to use while we
corrected the problem. Seldom did we see a vehicle return with our prior
knowledge from our caller that it was coming back in.
Was that a profitable business plan? Yes it was. We had more work than we
knew what to do with. Each week during the spring and summer we stopped
taking in customers on Wednesday for the week. Typically we would write up
100~125 vehicles each Monday morning before the lines ended. By Wednesday
afternoon we would have written 300+ vehicles for the week. I got paid
really really well.
Quality service and products served right will always be profitable. To
expect less of yourself and your service or product for the sake of trying
to increase profit margins will be a loosing proposition in the long run.
By today's definition of QC it is no wonder that businesses are in the shape
that they are in and it is a small wonder why the foreign competition has
been gaining steadily for many many years. QC is now better defined as a
level of acceptable incompetence or inferiority. It is a shame that "most"
businesses today don't know that any thing less than 100% satisfaction of
its product is not a good thing, but then we live in an immediate
gratification society. So you can continue to explain how your QC does not
stand for perfection rather a level of tolerable acceptance and you can
continue to wonder why that ain't working.
You are conflating "quality control" with "zero defects". You can do
that if you want to and you make make points with the peanut gallery but
anybody who knows anything about industrial processes knows that he's
got the right of it.
QC is a process, zero defects is a goal. One generally has to run a QC
process to achieve zero defects but it is not necessary that zero
defects the the result of the QC process.
As to the notion thathe can continue to wonder why QC at a level less
than zero defects isn't working, you really need to demonstrate _where_
it isn't working. Show us an industry where there is a leader that
achieves zero-defects and has slaughtered all their competition.
Again, misconception and mistaken understanding of what am saying...
"Quality control: The observation techniques and activities used to
fulfill requirements for quality."
Could I interrupt this QC discussion for a question on Festool ROS? <grin>
My curiosity has been piqued now as to why the Festool is so superior to
Is there really a performance advantage sufficient to justify the higher
What is it that makes a Festool so much better?
I've been looking at the 150:
I have several ROS sanders but if I become persuaded that the Festool is
worth the money..........I'll spring.
I don't think I *need* the rotary action. I can't recall an instance where
I had a sanding situation where I needed that sort of an aggressive action.
Once in awhile I might need to take off a slight misfit between a face frame
and the carcase but my belt sander does it very well.
And an extra $200. doesn't seem to me to be justified..................at
> What is it that makes a Festool so much better?
> I've been looking at the 150:
Festool products are excellently engineered and of high quality, and
that one would be a good one, but it is not the top end of the Festool
I would say that you might get a better bang for your buck by shopping
around and checking other reviews, like this one:
The "Rotex" versions are what I'm most familiar with and ...
I would say yes ... mainly due to having a choice of motions ("rotex",
or aggressive removal, and eccentric, or less aggressive), bolstered by
the hole location and number in the pad, increasing the benefit (longer
sandpaper life) from dust extraction, given you overall a much more
efficient sanding system.
However ... to be effective and get the greatest sanding efficiency, you
most definitely do need a dust extraction system. Might not have to be a
Festool DE system, but they certainly optimize the performance.
Also, the motors are robust, well engineered and relatively quiet and
vibration free in operation.
Here's an independent review of the Rotex 125, which compares it to the
Rotex 150, so covers both quite nicely.
Only caveat, as stated above ... IME&O, the sander must be part of a
dust extraction system to get you maximum efficiency/cost effectiveness
... just my tuppence.
That, of course, raises the ante ...
I will say this, if you're in the woodworking business in some fashion,
it is highly unlikely you will EVER regret any Festool purchase.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.