This quote from Allpar.com tells it better than I could:
http://www.allpar.com/history/extended-enterprise.html

“Suppliers’ trust in Chrysler – and their investments – were repaid by Dieter Zetsche’s crude demands of 15 percent price cuts, across the board, from all suppliers. Suppliers who built plants in Brazil simply to supply Chrysler’s new Dodge Dakota plant were told soon after construction that the plant was being shut down as part of Daimler’s “rescue” of Chrysler, which had seen massive profits the year before, and had amassed an estimated $8 – 12 billion in cash to avoid having to resort to such actions.

To quote one insider, “At this time, SCORE no longer exists-there are no more payments for innovation and cost reduction by suppliers. Under the current thinking and direction, suppliers are not to be trusted and are to be bullied at every opportunity to ‘demonstrate who’s boss.’ Think Lopez at GM in the 1990s….” “

My point wasn’t that errors are acceptable but rather, it is expected that operators will do everything and anything to mess up the process (not that this is always true), hence most processes are poka yoked and/or controls are put in place to limit exposure to the customer from human error.

I worked for a company that built automated assembly and test systems. Our guys could not get our machine calibrated and began measuring all of the parts that came from Ford (Visteon). Big differences between the parts’ machined dimensions from part to part. Their guys explained they were good enough and our guys had to alter the machine to cope costing more money.

These by the way parts going on the Focus engine.

Another story: coworker at same company told me how at a previous job at a similar company they had built what amounted to a refrigerator to chill plastic Chrysler air conditioner clips which were brittle and prone to snap on the assembly line. Chilling them kept them from snapping. Of course the engine bay is what temperature under normal use? How about a better clip design?

Yes my experience with Ford, Visteon and Chrysler has been “it’s good enough”. Not in all departments though. Visteon had some very dedicated people looking at CAD drawings and would flunk them for minutia that did not even relate to the sizing of the parts (numbering would flunk a drawing but then it should too). That said I know some of our guys had a “good enough attitude” too.

We might point fingers at the big 2.8 but it might be an intrinsic problem right to the core of American business. I’m a perfectionist myself but that is not necessarily an economical attitude to have in all situations. It’s a balancing act.

A friend who works for a Japanese rubber component company (motor mounts, bushings, etc) says their Asian customers are much more picky than their domestic customers. Asian customers check parts coming into the building and if one flunks the whole pallet goes back to the manufacturer to be tested and certified.

As a customer that’s the kind of parts I want my car built with and why I think my Honda is doing so well at 151K miles (made in Japan) and my VW is falling apart at 151K miles (Hencho in Mexico).

VW Update: my gas tank is leaking today… Likely a $20 seal where the fuel pump enters the top of the tank.

Since the Big 2.8 look for the majority of their cost savings by passing it onto their parts suppliers those suppliers hardly invest in that side of the business but rather focus on the QC development with Toyota or Honda (who assist them in doing so with rewards and money back based on performance). When the Big 2.8 make profits they tend to give the money back to their shareholders in dividends – whereas Toyota or Honda give small scheduled dividends but reinvest that money back into the business to fuel growth. Stockholders get increase in value of their position. It’s the old short term versus long term growth focus. Seems the Big 2.8 and most of their investors want short term gain / wealth at the expense of the future.

guyincognito:

Things like damaged parts will be caught by sensors or end of line testing 97.2% of the time.

If a part is rejected, wouldn’t you (as a company, as a supplier, as a team) want to know what went wrong? And then make sure it didn’t happen again? Can you imagine a Porsche supplier saying, ja, OK, ve dropped the box. Now it is their problem.

I was watching an HDTV program about building the Z06 (I’d watch grass grow in HD with my 1080). The voiceover was trumpeting the quality control systems at Bowling Green. A computerized camera doo-hickey scanned the mondo expensive 'Vette frame for mistakes.

Just as I was about to cop some Zs, sure enough, the computer flagged a tiny hole in the wrong place. We see the screens showing where the hole was, and where it should be. The guy running the gig walks up to the offending hole. Yup. There is is.

The voiceover guy: “the part passes manual inspection and heads over to anti-rust dunking pool (or some such thing).”

Huh? The frame flunks electronic inspection and gets a free ride? Now I know some of you will say, so what? If it’s not important, what difference does it make? Well, if it’s not important, why are they inspecting for it? And anyway, how did the hole get drilled in the wrong place? And do I want to drive a Z06 with a– as in any– design flaw?

Dedication to excellence and accountability start at the beginning and ends in the CEO’s office. Or not.

I once had business with a plant that made seats for Toyota’s new plant in Kentucky, and for Chrysler. Toyota’s seats got TLC, because a seat that arrived at the Toyota plant that wasn’t perfect got sent back. The plant even had people going over each seat with an electric razor to make sure that there weren’t any loose threads.

Chrysler? “Good enough to ship” was the motto. The plant manager told me they never got a return from Chrysler.

Bob