Jarrold, I'm not going to play anymore if you continue twisting what I say....... I never said or implied -
"they don't do this to ensure that their products are 6 sigma (since you brought it up)...... "
All I said was
"And while not completely defect free, there really are world class companies that have moved to or are approaching a 6 sigma quality level (including internally found defects)."
I mean no disrespect here, but your post has some things in it that indicate you're stuck in the 90's (or even the 80's). I won't go point by point, but I will say this -
ISO and QS were put out there to try and standardize requirements...... and believe it or not, it was cost driven..... As suppliers were going more global, and their customer bases became wider, it became very expensive to meet everyone's requirements in the ways they wanted them met...... In automotive (since you brought it up) all of the OEM's had pretty much the same requirements, but they wanted them met in different ways. And each of these customers were doing their own auditing of their suppliers. Suppliers and OE's were spending tons because of it (and make no mistake....it was being passed on to consumers). I sat on the supplier board that helped Ford pull together it's list of wants and requirements it brought to the AIAG for inclusion into QS. Ford was very clear that it was cost driven (as it usually is in any business).
In the late 90's, the automakers seriously considered dumping the whole idea. Again, cost (and questionable results) was at the center of it. They felt the standards were propegating a "status quo" mentality among the supplybase, and no real improvements were happening. Companies had the procedures, but the linkages were not clear, and it was costing everyone. The latest versions of ISO, and the TS (tech spec for auto) changed all of that. It has forced suppliers to take a process approach, define linkages, and monitor the effectiveness of it's systems. I'll tell you this much..... it was much more time consuming, and a heck of a lot more expensive trying to comply with the old standard than what it does with the new. I can tell by your posts that you're clearly not familiar with the lastest versions. I urge you to investigate them.
Your post makes it pretty clear that you're not a six sigma practitioner either. In fact, your post indicates you're stuck in the "outgoing" mentality all of us involved in US mfg were stuck in back in the 80's. In order to achieve the quality levels required, we had to stop thinking purely on outgoing quality. We had to start looking for the "hidden factory" and right those things, or we were never going to hit those ever increasing outgoing requirements. You kinda say that in your post when you say:
"They do it because the product is SO COMPLEX, that if the parts are not extremely 'good" the outgoing (AOQL) quality level will be abysmal."
But you don't measure sigma on outgoing only. It is not typically measured using only external PPM or even a final DPU, because those measures don't necessarily show the "hidden factory". Having been a quality professional for over 25 years now (man, i'm getting old), I can tell you the higher your DPMO (what your sigma should be based on), then the higher your costs, the higher your DPU, and in many cases the higher your outgoing PPM (unless you're really muscling it). I do agree that those last few defects may not be worth it, but you better make darned sure you're able to detect them before pushing them out the door.
And just to clarify, it's not as uncommon you'd think to no bid a OEM automaker (again, that is more 80's thinking). We no bid both a Toyota RFQ and a GM RFQ last month. You can only wrap so many dollar bills around each part, you know. The OE's recognize this. And things are tough in all industries today....... you have to learn to get by on single digit margins.
Listen, it all comes down to this..... having a good quality system shouldn't cost a company a whole lot to implement..... if they're doing the right things, and continually improving (again, it's continual, not continuous), then they'll see costs go down (if not, then they're probably not very committed to their systems to begin with). And you don't even need a ISO cert to do it. Improvements in effectiveness result in efficiency/productivity improvements, scrap reduction, and reduced repair/rework (in my experience safety costs are usually reduced as well) . And all of those things impact your outgoing performance. Guys like Deming and Juran taught that to the Japanese back in the fifties, and it still holds true today (I urge you to read Deming's "Out of the Crisis" and Crosby's "Quality is Free").
No one is implying the amp mfg'ers buy components that meet automotive quality levels. But things are changing..... we're finding it's cheaper in the long run to buy our components and subs from ISO certified vendors (not necessarily TS). In fact, many of the ISO cert'd vendors are able to hold their costs down and keep pricing much more consistent than their non-registered counterparts. We're seeing this in China today. And you MUST hold your suppliers to some level, whether you're ISO subscribing or not. I maintain that it is cheaper in the long run to let the ISO cert and third party auditing take care of that, instead of doing it yourself. The only other option is to do NOTHING.
And back to my original point...... and maybe a little more clearly........
It's okay for a mfg'er to have a problem. It's what they do with that problem that makes the difference. Again, after the sale CS is required, but by itself does not make up for properly containing a known problem, and doing what you can to prevent it from happening to other customers. If a company knows it has a problem, and continues to build, letting the customers sort out the good from the bad for them, then it must have some incredible margins, because that only drives the cost of each unit up. I think we'd all rather see those costs put into making the problem go away, instead of letting us sort it out for them (again, I'm not say Loud is doing this). And one more thing for clarity...... I'm not saying you have to be ISO certified or a company that subscribes to six sigma to do the right thing.
Jerrold, let's take this to PM if you wish to continue the debate. We've messed over this thread enough.
