View Single Post
  #132 (permalink)  
Old 08-17-2012, 08:15 AM
D-CEL D-CEL is offline
CC Member
Visit my Photo Gallery

 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Rancho Cucamonga, ca
Cobra Make, Engine: SPF 239
Posts: 820
Not Ranked     
Default

Glen,
In my opinion the process at Eagle failed in many key areas only one of which was MFG.
Hopefully, the will do the right thing for the cust. and apply the lesson learned to improve the process and output. Sadly, my experience with Chinese MFG suggests they will not.
But in response to your statements about QC, I would say:
Value added (VA) is typically considered anything extra added to the product or service that does not add cost but gives the seller a competitive edge.
Non-value added (NVA) is defined anything the customer isn’t willing to pay for.
And while I would agree that the classic “final inspection” methodology added no value the mfg process, you could make a defensible case that it was moderately effective system for maintaining customer satisfaction and reducing “resultant failures” and RM type costs.
However, today’s proactive mfg techniques and the application of real time, concurrent “Inspection” of key features by the operator, couple with continual adjustment to center the process output. (this directly adds value by reducing non conforming part costs, spindle down time, etc.) this type of process yields a high quality, low defect part.
I think we would all agree that the perception of a “High Quality part” is valuable and marketable, and as the operator is already being paid the specific QA function does not add cost. With that in mind, I feel it clearly falls within the VA column.

Jason
Reply With Quote