China 
Africa 
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Quality and Operational Excellence
Published in Ron Basu, The Green Six Sigma Handbook, 2023
One frequently asked question about quality management is, ‘Can you quantify the benefits?’ The answer to this question is yes we can, albeit approximately. The benefits are quantified in terms of not having the right quality or the cost of poor quality. The concept of ‘the cost of quality’ is not new. In fact Juran (1951) first discussed the cost of quality analysis as far back as 1951. However, Feigenbaum (1956) should be credited with the definition of the cost of quality when he identified the four cost categories in 1956. These can be classified as Prevention Costs, Appraisal Costs, Internal Failure Costs and External Failure Costs. Both concept and categories have been followed basically in the same format ever since. Prevention Costs and Appraisal Costs are often defined using one of three terms: Cost of Control, Cost of Conformance or Cost of Good Quality. Regardless of the label used, this refers to the outlay of setting up and managing a quality management team with clearly defined processes. Similarly, Internal Failure Costs and External Failure Costs are also combined to be known as the Cost of Failure, the Cost of Non-conformance or the Cost of Poor Quality. These are the expenses of defects and reworks arising from poor quality management.
Revolutionizing Manufacturing Operations: Toyota Production System
Published in MJS Bindra, Ekroop Kaur, The Lean Business Guidebook, 2022
Quality has a cost and poor quality adds to this cost since it disrupts the flow of production, and resources like material, labor and machine utilized in that production are wasted because it could have been sold as a finished product. The quality control function does not ensure the quality of a product. It only assesses the quality at various phases of production of a product. Therefore, quality has to be ensured at the source of production. Every operator has to understand his role in manufacturing and should be skilled in his work so that excellent quality products are manufactured at each cell and function.
Management Mind-Set to Support QRM
Published in Rajan Suri, John Burke, Quick Response Manufacturing, 2020
The traditional “inspection approach” to quality, as found in older texts on quality control, emphasized a trade-off between quality and cost of inspection. The aim was to increase the degree of inspection until the marginal cost of additional inspection exceeded the loss from bad product. This approach has been replaced by modern quality methods that show the cost of poor quality far exceeds those traditional calculations, and instead emphasize building quality into the operations by educating workers on basic techniques of quality control and quality improvement.
Relationship between quality management practices, performance and maturity quality management, a contingency approach
Published in Quality Management Journal, 2020
The third category, (problem handling), refers to how the company resolves problems, from non-effective solutions to effective preventing actions (Crosby 1979, 1996). The fourth category is the cost of poor quality as a percentage of sales. For this category, the classification has a reference value from 20% to 2.5% or less, divided in each of the categories. (Crosby 1979, 1996). The cost of poor-quality measures the relationship between prevention and inspection versus failure cost, internal and external. The traditional quality cost model stated that increasing prevention and appraisal costs were associated with reduced failure cost (Cokins 2006).
Examining the relationship between human factors related quality risk factors and work related musculoskeletal disorder risk factors in manufacturing
Published in Ergonomics, 2023
Ahmet Kolus, Richard P. Wells, W. Patrick Neumann
Product quality is seen as one of the core performance drivers in manufacturing (Tracey, Vonderembse, and Lim 1999; Das et al. 2008). Product quality is defined as ‘conformance to requirement’ or ‘fitness for use’ (Russell and Taylor 2006). In the context of this study, quality refers to the extent to which the product manufacturing process is executed without deviations from the required process resulting in a defect-free product – a key element in system reliability and performance (Kolus, Wells, and Neumann 2018; Yung et al. 2020). Studies have shown that the cost of poor quality can account for up to 40% of a company’s revenue (Harrington 1987; Bank 1992; Booker, Raines, and Swift 2001; Falck and Rosenqvist 2012). In this report, we use the term quality risk factor (QRF) to refer to system design features that contribute to errors and the occurrence of quality deficits in operations – specifically here manufacturing processes. This is analogous to work related musculoskeletal disorder risk factors, but with a quality not a health outcome. WMSD are considered as one of the most common health problems in manufacturing (Bernard 1997; National Research Council 2001). WMSD refers to ‘those diseases and injuries that affect the musculoskeletal, peripheral nervous and neurovascular systems that are caused or aggravated by occupational exposure to work-related risk factors’ (NIOSH 1997). WMSD can be characterised by impairments of bodily structures, such as muscles, joints, tendons, ligaments, nerves, bones and localised blood circulation system caused or aggravated by the negative impact of work or work environment on upper limb extremities, lower back area and lower limbs (Nunes 2009; Nunes and Bush 2012). In addition to the human costs, WMSD impose a huge financial burden on manufacturing due to economic losses resulted from lost or reduced productivity, medical treatments and indemnity costs (Amell and Kumar 2001; Nunes and Bush 2012; Armijo-Olivo et al. 2016; Daneshmandi et al. 2017) with many of the costs being ‘hidden’ and difficult to isolate in accounting systems (Rose, Orrenius, and Neumann 2013). Therefore, attempts to manage and prevent WMSD can lead to a significant opportunity for cost reduction (Sobhani, Wahab, and Neumann 2015, 2016).