That’s right! Quality is designed in

Thread Content

When I first heard the term DQA, I really had no idea what it was. After interacting with some of the Fortune 500 companies, I came to understand that the role known as Design Quality Assurance is a very important position that involves evaluating and confirming whether a design is suitable for mass production during the new product development phase. Quality is something that is determined through design, and the responsibilities of a DQA specialist serve as the best illustration of this concept. http://si1.go2yd.com/get-image/0Vhrtmmy4mm Statistics show that although the design and development costs of a product account for only 10%–15% of the total cost, they determine 70%–80% of that total cost. Given the crucial role of the product design phase in the final product quality and cost, it is increasingly recognized that good product quality is achieved through design. 1 Can truly poor design be overcome through effort later on? There was a time when the lean design philosophy focused on QCD – quality, cost, and delivery times. It was abandoned due to a complacent localism and short-sighted behavior of killing the goose that lays the eggs. The RD (designers) at many contract manufacturing and processing plants no longer go to the production site to carry out design work; instead, they stay in the office drawing diagrams. Moreover, there is a severe loss of experienced RD professionals. This results in designs that remain mere fantasies and cannot be transformed into actual manufacturing capabilities, and they also refuse to admit the problems with their designs. By blindly hiding one’s mistakes, they slip away once mass production begins. As a result, these poor design issues that made mass production impossible led those RDs who tried to shirk responsibility to come up with a very plausible excuse: “It’s a design issue; the manufacturing process can overcome it.” ”The ultimately reasonable suggestions for design changes were rejected by them on various grounds, and in the end a makeshift solution was found to barely enable mass production. If the goods cannot be delivered, they just shrug their shoulders, saying it’s the responsibility of the quality department or the supplier – that quality needs to be improved and the yield rate raised. Then, there are endless disasters. Line shutdowns, inability to deliver goods, inventory selection, customer complaints, claims, and so on. For example, due to the physical properties of the plastic particles themselves, black components of a certain model may shrink in size over time when stored in a warehouse, resulting in dimensions that exceed the specified limits. Such problems were already identified during the trial production, but RD was also at a loss. A temporary solution was devised: each time a line was deployed, it was placed in an air-conditioned room for a few days to allow the temperature to return to normal, and this method was used to handle the deployments going forward. But it wasn’t a sustainable solution after all, and eventually the truth came to light some time ago. The products that have been warmed in air-conditioned rooms still exhibit defects related to excessive gaps in their structure, and this issue occurs at a high rate, resulting in the shutdown of the production line. In the end, still find RD. Multiple verifications carried out by the mass production team and suppliers proved that this plastic material was unstable; faced with irrefutable data, the RD department had no choice but to admit that it was a design issue – the wrong material had been selected in the first place. In the end, the standards for the gap were simply relaxed to settle things down; there were interruptions in production time and again, and the supplier incurred failure costs of at least several hundred thousand yuan as a result of the minimal verification carried out. But if, during the testing phase of new models, RD can face reality and set aside that pitiful sense of pride, then these losses can be avoided. It should be completely avoidable; at the very least, we don’t have to take such a long detour. So my conclusion is that it’s very difficult to completely remedy poor design issues over time. In design, it is essential to follow the DFM (Design for Manufacturing) and DFA (Design for Assembly) principles from the very first stage; only by doing so can good quality be achieved in actual production. 2. Does quality control really only need to focus on process issues during the trial production phase? In fact, we have many misconceptions in our thinking, which is why we are facing such poor results in the trial production of new models. To put it simply, many design problems remain unresolved because, ultimately, there is a lack of mechanisms for evaluating and overseeing the quality of designs. This is directly related to the excessive indulgence of RD by the company’s top management; in fact, everyone knows that children who are not held to strict standards and not exposed to challenges basically have no chance of becoming successful. Three common mistakes in quality control during the trial production phase: Mistake 1: As quality control personnel, we only need to examine process or material issues. Comment: Completely wrong. The most common problems during trial production arise because the specifications, manufacturing processes, fixtures, molds, and machines have not all been finalized yet. So the most common problems are not related to the manufacturing process or materials, but rather to design, specifications, molds, programs, and so on. And this is often overlooked by us – we fail to check whether RD has fully resolved the issue, thus missing the optimal opportunity to solve the design problem. Myth 2: RD has provided solutions for this design issue, so there should be no problem. Comment: If we don’t go and verify whether the countermeasures have been implemented and whether the situation has truly improved. So, unintentionally, we have planted another time bomb for mass production. Myth 3: Design is the RD’s responsibility; we just need to wait for the handover during mass production. Comment: Quality control teams with such a mindset end up facing a bunch of problems during mass production. Then, confused, I was criticized for having poor quality and for not managing things properly and so on. The correct approach is to get involved in the design process at an early stage, in order to understand as much as possible the manufacturing properties of the product as well as any design flaws. This enables early intervention and early identification. Only then can there be long-term stability in mass production, and it is highly beneficial for quality control to get involved early in the trial production of new models. The quality of product design determines the inherent quality of the product, and it represents the \"bottleneck\" in quality control throughout the product’s life cycle. Statistical analysis shows that 30% of product quality issues stem from manufacturing processes, while 70% arise from defects in product design. Therefore, how to systematically and effectively manage quality issues during the product design process in order to ensure product quality has become a specific challenge and a focus of research for enterprises. In short, during the trial production phase, one must strive to identify problems, so that problems won’t arise during mass production. Only by daring to challenge technical design issues and constantly asking whether such a solution can ensure sustainable and stable production Will this solution result in a good delivery yield? Will this make it easy for on-site workers to operate and prevent errors? Only then is it possible to identify and resolve the risk issues that could affect the quality of mass-produced products during the trial production phase. This allows 80% of efforts and time to be devoted to trial production, so that only 20% of the time is needed to effectively manage the quality of the mass-produced models