Pain points of spring quality in the manager meeting
During the company managers' meeting today, when it reached the session on "production quality closed-loop issues", the general manager suddenly zeroed in on specific risk points: "The assembly line just reported that out of the 200 springs installed last week, 17 suffered permanent deformation during debugging - the valve stem got stuck when returning and the sealing failed. The root cause is that the springs weren't inspected: there were no clear inspection standards, and the inspectors didn't know what to measure or how to measure, which was tantamount to allowing substandard products to flow in. The quality department needs to come up with a solution."
Progress and core bottlenecks of the existing inspection work
As the person in charge of inspection specifications in the Quality Department, I responded to the current situation on the spot:
I. Check the progress of writing the inspection specifications - The detectable items of the appearance and dimensions have been sorted out: for example, the free height of the spring (±0.5mm), the wire diameter (±0.1mm), the number of coils (8±0.2 coils), surface burrs/rust, etc. These can be measured with a vernier caliper and a magnifying glass. Currently, small - batch trial testing is underway.
II. The insurmountable core obstacle: the permanent deformation index of the spring cannot be measured. This index is the lifeline of the spring's performance. For example, if our spring is used in the temperature control valve of a water heater, once the permanent deformation exceeds 3%, the temperature control valve will fail to close accurately, ultimately causing overheating and damage to the water heater. However, measuring permanent deformation requires a spring characteristic tester. First, apply 1.2 times the rated load and maintain it for 24 hours. After unloading, measure the residual deformation. This process requires the equipment to precisely control the three variables of load - time - deformation. An ordinary tension meter only has the function of instantaneous tension measurement and cannot meet the requirements at all.
So my conclusion is very clear: The spring characteristic tester must be purchased. Otherwise, the key indicator of "permanent deformation" can never be effectively controlled.
Opposition of the technical director and on - site conflict
Unexpectedly, the technical director immediately frowned and retorted in a raised voice, "It's not that complicated! Just find a dynamometer, check the rated load of the spring, directly apply the corresponding force, and see if it deforms. Are you not going to conduct the inspection just because you don't have the equipment?"
My heart skipped a beat at that moment — it was obvious that he didn't understand the difference between "permanent deformation" and "instantaneous deformation". What worried me more was that his way of thinking would directly lead to the "formalization" of the inspection process: measuring the instantaneous deformation with a dynamometer simply couldn't reflect the performance degradation of the spring after long - term use. So I couldn't help raising my voice in response:
The stringent requirements of ISO 9001: Clause 7.1.5 clearly states that "monitoring and measuring resources must ensure the validity of results". The pull force gauge for measuring permanent deformation lacks the "load holding - timing" function, and the data is not traceable. The external auditor will definitely judge it as a non - conforming item.
Supplier recognition issue: If our non-standard method (tensile meter) shows the products fail the test, the supplier will definitely not accept it. They will say, "Your testing method is not authoritative." In that case, the disputes over product returns will undermine the efficiency of the supply chain.
The method itself is unscientific: Permanent deformation refers to "residual deformation after long-term stress", while what the tension meter measures is "deformation under instant tension". The two are completely different things. For example, for a certain batch of springs, the instant deformation measured by the tension meter is qualified. However, after 3 months of actual use, the permanent deformation exceeds the standard, and finally they will still enter the market and cause complaints.
After listening, the technical director stared at me for two seconds, rolled his eyes, turned around to rummage through the files and stopped talking. The meeting room fell silent immediately. Only then did I realize that I had won the argument but lost the communication.
Post-event reflection and directions for improvement
After the meeting, I kept thinking about it. In fact, the technical director's opposition was essentially aimed at "quickly resolving the current inspection gap". He was worried that the procurement process for the equipment would be too long and affect the production progress. If I had expressed myself in a different way at that time, the result would have been completely different.
For example, first empathize with his starting point: "Director, I really understand your eagerness to solve the problem quickly. After all, the production line is waiting for the springs to be installed."
Let me clarify the particularity of the problem: "However, the index of permanent deformation is a bit special. It requires a 24 - hour load - holding period for measurement, which the tension meter can't achieve. Moreover, ISO requires that the testing method should be verifiable. If we use a tension meter, the external auditor will definitely ask, 'What is the testing basis?' It'll be difficult for us to explain."
Finally, here's a solution: "How about we apply for the purchase of a testing instrument? It costs only about 50,000 yuan. It can completely solve the problem of detecting permanent deformation. In the future, it will cover up the loopholes no matter for external audits or suppliers."
This way, it not only acknowledges his "urgency to solve the problem", but also tactfully points out the "limitations of the method", and provides a specific solution - which is easier for him to accept than a direct refutation.
Final summary
This incident taught me a lesson: the core of communication is not to win the argument but to convey logic. When encountering different opinions, don't rush to refute. First, receive the other person's emotions (e.g., I understand your thoughts). Then, deconstruct the essence of the problem (e.g., But this indicator requires XX conditions). Finally, present a solution (e.g., How about doing it this way).
As for emotional control —— if I had taken a three - second deep breath at that time to calm myself down and spoken these contents in a steady tone, I wouldn't have put the technical director in an awkward position, nor would I have made the atmosphere in the meeting room tense.
After all, the ability to solve problems has never been about "winning an argument against others," but rather "getting others willing to solve problems with you." Next, I need to work hard on two abilities: I. "Empathetic expression"; II. "The emotional pause button" – when encountering a conflict, pause for two seconds before speaking.