The "Firefighting" Dilemma and Breakthrough for Quality Professionals: A Three - year Game from "Man - Marking" to "Process Management"
I. Those customer complaint calls in the middle of the night: The daily breakdown of quality control personnel
At half past two in the morning in the office building, the office light of the quality manager is still on. On the phone screen, there is a voice message from the customer: "Your product caught fire again! The production line has stopped! You must give me the 8D report before 10 o'clock tomorrow morning!" There is the 5th packet of instant coffee powder soaking in the coffee cup on the desk, and there is a stack of customer complaint files about half a meter high beside it: capacitor leakage on March 15th, scratches on the shell on April 2nd, substandard performance on May 9th... Each file is marked with "recurring". At the morning meeting, the boss threw the reports and scolded: "What good are you in the Quality Department? There are 3 more customer complaints this month than last month!" The palms of the quality supervisor are all sweaty. He wants to explain that "this batch of materials was sourced from the supplier '20% cheaper' specially approved by the boss", but he swallows the words back - after all, he saw the boss squatting on the production line yesterday, staring at the workers screwing the screws and scolding the quality inspectors "blind for not seeing the defective products".
This is not a story of an individual quality control professional. It is the "daily life" of quality control teams in many private enterprises: Every day they are "putting out fires" in customer complaints, rework, and scrap, but the more they try, the bigger the fires become; The boss keeps saying "Quality first", but when the delivery deadline can't be met, the first thing he says is "Ship the goods first and make up for quality later"; The employees think "Quality is the business of the quality control department". If a part is missing on the production line, the worker would say "No one told me to install this"; Quality inspectors hold inspection standards but find that they are from last year and no longer in line with the customer's requirements.
II. The Contradictory Genes of Enterprises: Innovation is as fast as a rocket, while management is as slow as an oxcart
When I was parachuted into this company, its label was "a dark horse in technology": it had obtained 27 patents in just five years of its establishment, launched three new products every month, and its clients were the top five giants in the industry. However, behind these "glories" lay fatal management loopholes:
1. Innovation precedes management: The R & D department launches three new products every month, but the technical documents are scattered in the engineers' computers. The workers on the production line assemble products based on "old experience". For the same product, the tolerance is +0.3mm one day and -0.2mm the next day. When the customer requests a "waterproof rating of IP67", the R & D department draws the drawings but fails to inform the production department that "the sealant should be applied three times". As a result, when the products are delivered to the customer and tested in water, they all leak.
2. The boss's "person-to-person supervision" philosophy: The boss is a "factory floor regular" - he arrives at the production line at 7 a.m. every day, observing the force with which workers tighten screws and feeling the temperature of the materials. When he sees defective products, he scolds the quality inspectors, saying, "You're blind!" However, it never occurs to him to ask, "Why are the screws always not tightened properly?" Is it because the tools are not calibrated? Or is it because the workers have not been trained? His solution is to "add more people to supervise": He asks the quality inspectors to stand next to the production line and check each screw after it's tightened. As a result, the quality inspectors end up with a herniated lumbar disc from exhaustion, but the defective product rate remains unchanged.
3. Quality is the "third choice": Every time there is a conflict between delivery time and quality, the boss's first words are "Ship the goods first!" — Once, a customer ordered 1,000 sets of equipment. It was found on the production line that the casings of 100 sets were scratched. The boss said, "Sand them with sandpaper and cover the scratches with a label." When the materials from the supplier were sub - standard, the boss said, "The price is 20% lower. Use them first." As a result, when customer complaints came in, he scolded the quality department, "Why didn't you stop it?"
4. The system is a showpiece: The ISO9000 certificate is bought with money. The system documents are locked in the drawer of the administrative department. The workers on the production line don't know what the standards are. The inspection records of the quality inspectors are filled in after the fact, all written as qualified. When the customer audits the factory, the administrative department temporarily prints a pile of false records and asks the workers to memorize the standard answers. After the factory auditor leaves, everything goes back to the original state.
III. The Ineffective Efforts in the First Year: Why Are Hiring More People, Providing Training, and Restructuring the Organization All Useless?
When I first took office, I thought "more people mean more strength". I expanded the Quality Department from eight people to fifteen, adding three quality engineers. I thought "training can solve problems". I invited a consultant to give a lecture on "the seven QC tools" and organized the workers to take the exam for the "inspection qualification certificate". I thought "adjusting the organization can improve efficiency". I divided the Quality Department into three groups: IQC, IPQC, and OQC, and clarified their respective duties... So, what was the result?
- Everyone who has joined is "putting out the fire": New engineers write 8D reports every day and are still revising responses to customer complaints at 2 a.m.
- The content of the training is useless: Workers have learned about Pareto charts, but there are no standards on the production line, so they have no idea where the problems are.
- After the organizational adjustment, "the internal strife has become more severe": The IQC claims that "the production department doesn't use our inspection results", the IPQC says that "the R & D department hasn't provided any standards", and the OQC states that "the customer requirements haven't been conveyed" – everyone is shifting the blame and no one is solving the problems.
IV. Breaking the deadlock in the second year: From "patching" to "changing the system"
It wasn't until I realized that all quality problems stem from "poor process management" – it's not that "the people are incompetent," but rather that "the process design is flawed"; it's not that "supervision is inadequate," but instead that "no methods are provided." So I changed my approach: instead of trying to take on too much, I decided to tackle the most difficult problems first; instead of implementing "comprehensive reform," I started with "single - point breakthroughs."
1. Use IQC to fight the model battle: Process management is not about writing documents, but about solving problems
At that time, the IQC department was in a complete mess. The inspection standards were written in the old employees' notebooks, and new employees had to "learn by feeling" when they joined. The materials from suppliers were piled up at the warehouse door, and inspectors had to "seize the time" for testing, with the missed inspection rate as high as 15%. The production department was urging for materials, so the IQC could only "release the materials first and then make up the records later".
I didn't rush to "write system documents" but did three things:
Disassembly process: Divide the IQC work into four steps: "receiving - inspection - judgment - feedback". Clearly define the "input", "output" and "responsible person" for each step.
- Input: The supplier's "Material Specification Sheet", "Factory Inspection Report", and the Quality Department's "Inspection Standard".
- Output: "IQC Inspection Report", "Non-conforming Product Handling Form", "Supplier Rectification Notice";
- Responsible persons: Inspector A is responsible for the appearance, Inspector B is responsible for the electrical performance, the team leader is responsible for the judgment, and the supervisor is responsible for providing feedback to the supplier.
Set standards: Change "based on experience" to "based on data" — for example, when testing "capacitance", the original standard was "close enough", but now it is clearly stated that "the error ≤ ±2%". Test with instruments and record the results in the system;
Establish assessment: Incorporate "missed detection rate" and "inspection cycle" into KPI. The missed detection rate is reduced from 15% to ≤1%, and the inspection cycle is shortened from 8 hours to 3 hours. A fine of 200 yuan will be imposed for each overdue inspection.
As a result, three months later, the changes in IQC shocked the whole company:
- The missed detection rate has dropped from 15% to 2%.
- There has never been a situation in the warehouse where goods cannot be stored in the warehouse pending inspection results anymore.
- The production department manager came to me on his own initiative and said, "Could you give us a copy of your IQC process? Our assembly line also wants to make changes."
2. Use "data to prove the point": Make the boss understand that "management issues" are not "quality issues"
Changing the boss's perception is the most crucial step. He always thought that "poor quality is due to the quality department's loose supervision." It wasn't until I "unveiled" the truth with data at the quarterly business meeting that the situation changed:
That day, the boss was scolding again, "There are five more customer complaints this month than last month! What on earth is the Quality Department doing?" I took out the PPT I had prepared in advance and turned to the page titled "Root Cause Analysis of Customer Complaints".
- There were 10 customer complaints last month, and 8 of them were because the production department didn't implement the R & D department's 'New Product Assembly Standard' – and it was you who said in the meeting last week, 'To meet the delivery deadline, don't follow the standard for now'
- "There are also 2 cases of poor materials from the supplier. This supplier was specially approved by you with the condition of '20% cheaper in price and no incoming material inspection required'."
- Finally, I presented a formula: Quality issues = Management issues —— "If we have clear standards, a mechanism to supervise implementation, and rules to punish violations, how could there be repeated problems? You keep an eye on the production line every day, but you've never asked, 'Where are our standards? Where is the supervision?'"
The meeting room was completely silent. The boss's face turned from red to pale, and finally he said, "You're right. I was wrong."
From that day on, the boss's catchphrase changed. Instead of scolding the quality inspectors, he would ask, "What are the standards for this process? How well are they being implemented?"
3. Grasp the "source of customer complaints": Solve "recurring problems" using the process approach
I pulled out the data of customer complaints, internal rework, and scrap from the past year and conducted a "Pareto analysis". 40% of the customer complaints were due to "failure to meet the customers' special requirements".
- The customer requested "print the logo on the shell". The marketing department sent an email to the R & D and production departments, but didn't mention "the logo should be placed 2 cm from the top - left corner". As a result, the production department printed it in the top - right corner, and the customer returned the goods.
- The customer requested "voltage: 110V". The R & D department modified the circuit but didn't inform the production department that "the transformer model needed to be changed". As a result, when the goods were shipped out and the customer plugged them in, everything burned out.
- These "special requirements" are scattered in emails and WeChat messages. No one reviews them, no one archives them, and no one verifies them. They are like "invisible bombs," and we don't know when they will explode.
In response to this problem, I developed a "Customer Special Requirement Management Process". It only has 4 steps, but each step is "implemented solidly".
Step 1: Receive – Make the requirements take effect: When the Marketing Department receives a special requirement from a customer, it must fill out the Special Requirement Review Form, clearly stating requirement details, customer contact person, and deadline. Sending only an email is not acceptable.
Step 2: Evaluate – Block the risks: Convene a review meeting with the R & D department (Is it technically feasible?), production department (Is the output sufficient?), quality department (Can it be inspected?), and procurement department (Are the materials available?). The conclusion should be either feasible or not feasible, and no ambiguous handling is allowed.
Step 3: "Transmission" – Synchronize the requirements: After the review is approved, write the requirements into the "List of Customer Special Requirements", upload it to the shared folder, and synchronize it to the ERP system. When arranging production orders, the Production Planning Department should check the "List". During the final inspection, the Quality Department should verify whether the special requirements are met.
Step 4: Check – Patch up the loopholes: Hold a Special Requirements Review Meeting every month to check for any omissions or changes. For example, if the client has changed the position of the LOGO, update the List in a timely manner and notify all departments.
Three months after the implementation, the number of customer complaints about "unmet special customer requirements" dropped from six cases per month to zero. After the first process was resolved, the production department actively came to me to solve the problem of "screwing on the assembly line", and the R & D department came to me to solve the problem of "new product trial - production standards". Just like a domino effect, each department began to actively demand "process management".
V. Current situation: From "putting out fires" to "preventing fires"
Two years later, even the customers were surprised by the changes in the company:
- The number of customer complaints has decreased by 85%, changing from "10 cases per month" to "1 - 2 cases per month", and all of them are "minor issues".
- Workers on the production line no longer work based on experience but according to standards. There is an Operation Instruction Manual posted at each workstation, and there are calibration labels on the tools.
- The content of the boss's morning meeting has changed: instead of scolding the Quality Department, he now asks, "How are the process indicators this month?" and "Are there any omissions in the customers' special requirements?"
- The customers' calls have changed from "Your product is broken again" to "Your product has been very stable recently". One customer even sent a silk banner with the words "Exquisite Quality, Highly Trustworthy" written on it.
Finally: The "Code to Break the Deadlock" for Quality Professionals
I often tell newly recruited quality inspectors: Quality management is not "supervised"; it's "designed". You don't have to stand by the production line scolding workers every day, or burn the midnight oil writing 8D reports. As long as you manage the "process" well, there will naturally be fewer problems.
Those customer complaints, rework, and scrap that once made you break down are essentially all due to "poor process design":
- The special requirements of the customer are not met - it is because the "information transmission process" is not designed.
- The screw cannot be tightened tightly because the tool calibration process is not designed.
- Material missed inspection – the inspection process was not designed.
When you "break down each process into nodes, set clear standards, and add supervision", quality problems will fall one by one like a "domino effect".
This is my experience of transforming from a "firefighter" to a "fire prevention expert" - not by being "diligent", but by "understanding management".