The quality of Chinese products: It's not "poor", but "matching deviation" and "cognitive misalignment"
When it comes to the quality of Chinese products, the most common misconception is that "the quality is poor". However, in essence, the definition of "quality" has gone to extremes, and the understanding of users' needs is not precise enough. For example, some enterprises deliberately cut costs in non - core aspects in order to pursue "ultra - high cost - effectiveness". Take a wardrobe of a certain home furnishing brand as an example. To reduce the price, it uses cheap hardware, resulting in the drawers getting stuck after being pulled several times. But what consumers really need is a wardrobe that "can be used for 10 years without loosening", while the enterprise misinterprets it as "as long as it looks like solid wood in appearance". There are also some enterprises that over - stack functions in order to "go high - end". For instance, a certain mobile phone brand adds the "8K video recording" function to a thousand - yuan phone, but the battery capacity fails to catch up, leading to a poor battery life. What consumers really need is a phone that "can be used daily without charging". Another example is the difference between exported products and domestic - sold products. It is not that "the quality of domestic - sold products is poor", but that the needs of the target markets are different. Household appliances exported to Europe need to meet the electromagnetic compatibility standards of the CE certification because the circuit environment in European households is more sensitive. Domestic - sold household appliances focus more on "cost - effectiveness" because Chinese consumers care more about "getting a larger capacity at the same price". The core of quality is "matching the needs". The problem with Chinese products is not that they are "poor", but that they fail to pinpoint "the quality points that users really need".
The root cause of quality professionals being "ignored": not knowing how to prove their value in "business language"
Many quality professionals complain that "the company doesn't attach importance to quality". In essence, they are unable to translate the value of quality into the "business language" that bosses can understand. The core demand of bosses is "profitability", while a common mistake quality professionals often make is regarding quality as "compliance requirements" or "moral responsibilities". They only say things like "poor quality will affect the brand" and "we need to meet ISO standards", but they can't calculate the "hidden costs of quality problems". For example, a certain electronics factory loses 500,000 yuan per month due to reworking of defective products and 1 million yuan due to customer returns. However, the investment in improving quality is only 300,000 yuan per month. These figures are what bosses really care about.
There is also a key issue: Quality professionals often equate "quality" with "inspection" rather than "prevention". The work of many quality engineers is to "pick out defective products" instead of "optimizing processes to reduce defective products". For example, a clothing factory has to pick out 100 pieces of clothes with excessive loose threads every day. Quality professionals will only add inspectors but won't check if the thread tension of the sewing machine is not adjusted properly, nor will they train the workers on how to cut threads, resulting in "the defective rate not decreasing while the cost increasing instead". Since the boss doesn't see the "cost savings" or "efficiency improvement" brought by quality, naturally they won't pay attention.
The "formalization trap" of quality tools: Using "forms" to replace "problem-solving"
Many quality engineers' understanding of tools such as FMEA, SPC, and Six Sigma remains at the level of "filling out forms" rather than "solving practical problems". For example, FMEA (Failure Mode and Effects Analysis), which is originally used to identify potential risks in production. However, many people just fill in according to the template like "Failure mode: Solder falling off; Consequence: Product not working; Measure: Increase inspection". They won't go to the site to measure the fluctuation range of the solder temperature, won't analyze the purity difference of the solder wire, and won't observe the welding techniques of workers. In the end, FMEA becomes "waste paper for coping with audits".
Another example is SPC (Statistical Process Control), which is originally used to monitor the production stability in real-time. However, many people simply draw a control chart every day and don't analyze "the root causes of fluctuations". For example, in a machinery factory where the part size fluctuates greatly, quality control personnel can only say that "the process is unstable" and won't check the spindle vibration of the machine, the wear degree of the cutting tools, and the hardness difference of the materials. As a result, SPC fails to play its role in "preventing problems". The real application of quality tools is to "find the root causes with data and solve problems through processes" rather than "fill in forms to cope with audits".
China lacks "quality masters": It lacks the practical spirit of "staying in the workshop"
Why doesn't China have quality gurus like Deming and Juran? The core issue is "the disconnection between theory and practice":
- Pure academic school: They stay in the laboratory to write papers and conduct research on "mathematical derivation of quality models". They don't go to the front - line of factories to look into practical problems. For example, they study "the application of Six Sigma in the manufacturing industry" but have never been to the production line. They don't know that the workers' operating habits and the supply fluctuations of materials can affect the results.
- Formalist school: Fabricate false reports in order to get professional titles or secure projects. For example, they claim that "a certain project has reduced the defective rate by 40% through Six Sigma", but in fact, they haven't changed any processes. They just redefine "defective products" from "serious defects" to "minor defects".
- Lack of practical practitioners: A true quality master needs to "get down to the grassroots level." For example, when Deming was guiding Japanese enterprises, he would squat in the workshop to watch workers tighten screws, discuss with team leaders "how to reduce the time for tightening screws while ensuring consistent torque," and turn FMEA into a "checklist that can be directly used in the workshop." What China lacks is not "quality theories," but "practical experts who can turn theories into actionable methods."
What can we learn from developed countries? The dedication to "doing small things to perfection" and the objectivity of "judging things, not people"
What China should learn from developed countries is not "more advanced testing equipment" but two fundamental capabilities:
Dedication: "Do simple things to perfection" —— For example, Japanese car workers need to adjust the gap of a car door three times when installing it to ensure that the left - right error does not exceed 0.5mm; German engineers will test the wear rate of a bearing at 100 different temperatures when designing it, and they won't simplify the steps just because "the customer didn't ask for it". This kind of "dedication" is not "working overtime", but "the sense of responsibility for the product".
Objective: Look at problems with data rather than emotions. For example, when a German company encounters an increase in the defective product rate, it will first measure the temperature of the machine, the humidity of the materials, and the differences in the operators' techniques, rather than scolding the workers are lazy first. When a Japanese company analyzes customer complaints, it will count the most frequent complaint is ‘unresponsive buttons’ and then check the spring force of the buttons and the tolerance of the shell, rather than saying the customers are too picky. When many Chinese companies encounter quality problems, their first reaction is to find the responsible person rather than find the process problem. Such subjective judgment will cover up the real root cause.
In conclusion, the problems with Chinese quality have never been about "poor capabilities" but rather "cognitive biases" and "lack of practice" - regarding quality as a "cost" rather than an "investment", regarding tools as "forms" rather than "methods", and seeing problems as "others' business" rather than "one's own business". To solve these problems, quality professionals need to learn to "speak in business language", engineers need to learn to "dive deep into practice", and enterprises need to learn to "replace subjective judgments with objective data".