Back in the 1950s and 1960s, Japanese products were synonymous with cheaply made. Anyone over the age of 50 probably remembers cheap Japanese transistor radios when they were a kid. We all believed, in the day, that the more transistors a radio had, the better. That wasn’t necessarily true, but try telling that to a 9-year-old. And of course, we all knew that Japanese radios might claim to have 10 transistors but really only five of them worked.
Conventional wisdom was U.S. made: Good. Japanese made: Bad.
In June of 1950, W. Edwards Deming began offering training to the Japanese Union of Scientists and Engineers (JUSE) on the precepts of statistical process control.
At almost exactly the same time, Communist North Korea invaded and nearly overwhelmed their southern neighbors, who were immediately supported by the United Nations. The three-year war that followed resulted in a split on the Korean peninsula that exists to this day, with a state-controlled economy in the north and a free-market capitalist manufacturing behemoth in the south.
Markets and manufacturing practices continue to evolve, and companies now outsource to an increasing number of global manufacturing and supply partners. As companies have pursued this broadened supply chain strategy, the ability to manage both business and quality risks has become more challenging.
The importance of supply chain solutions relative to a company’s efforts to maintain and improve quality are almost impossible to underplay. When enacting quality improvement programs, any company would do well to examine its supply chain model and processes as a fundamental means of improving quality with suppliers, partners, and customers.
A couple of weeks ago I posed the question, “Are you overproducing improvements?” and compared a typical improvement “blitz” with a large monument machine that produces in large batches.
I’d like to dive a little deeper into some of the paradoxes and implications of 1:1 flow of anything, improvements included.
Technology giant HP has developed and launched multi-jet fusion (MJF), an industrial-grade 3D printing technology that quickly and accurately produces functional prototypes and end-use parts for a variety of applications. Protolabs served as one of several test sites for this additive manufacturing process because of its experience in industrial 3D printing, and recently added HP Jet Fusion 3D 4200 printers to its suite of manufacturing tools.
On the Apr. 20 episode of QDL, we brought you interviews on manufacturing’s digital transformation and the primacy of photogrammetry for large-volume, close-tolerance metrology, plus news about logistical efficiencies and worker motivations (or lack thereof). Here’s a closer look at the show:
Carrying your smartphone around everywhere has become a way of life. In doing so, you produce a surprising amount of data about your role in the economy—where you shop, work, travel, and generally hang out.
Thasos Group, founded at MIT in 2011, has developed a platform that leverages those data, in anonymized and aggregated form, to measure economies for industry and investors.
The AIAG-VDA FMEA Handbook committee and everyone who responded to the request for comment on the proposed AIAG-VDA failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) manual must be applauded for their efforts. Harmonizing the VDA and AIAG FMEA methods is not an easy task. According to industry sources, there were 4,000 or more comments on the proposed handbook. I believe this shows two things. First, people recognize the importance of the document. Second, they believe significant changes are required.
Inspection is a mandatory but nonvalue-adding activity, and our objective is to do as little as possible, provided that we continue to fulfill the customer’s requirements. The zero acceptance number (c = 0) sampling plan requires far less inspection than the corresponding ANSI/ASQ Z1.4 (formerly MIL-STD 105) plan, and becomes viable when the supplier is extremely confident in its level of quality.1
