[Karthik Chandra]

Great move this Suppliers will comply since the business volumes are huge.

Originally Posted by tsk1979

Are you Serious?

You are saying, that if you buy a product from the market, its the buyers responsibility to do QC?
In that case, shame on buyers if their car is defective. Its their job to do the QC at purchase time and reject if the product is low quality

Originally Posted by vikrantj

Please read my post again since I have never said end user is responsible for defective product as you are indicating in your post.

You have got it right now, end user is not responsible for defective product, it is the manufacturers' responsibilty

In this case MSIL is the end user and part supplier/vendor is the manufacturer, hence MSIL will stop offering contracts to suppliers that fail to meet its zero-defect policy

Originally Posted by vikrantj

I am saying MSIL is responsible for defective product.

MSIL is responsible for a defective car, so in turn MSIL will hold the supplier of parts responsible, only if they are made accountable, quality can be maintained so that the end product is flawless

Originally Posted by vikrantj

so it is imperative for them to do a QC of their incoming part.

Of-course MSIL will do QC to check if the supplies meet its zero-defect policy

[Lalvaz]

Perfectly justified in my opinion. This will ensure that vendors who want to do business with India's largest automotive manufacturer invest more in terms of making parts that work as designed and for a reasonable time limit. It will enhance the overall quality and reliability of the vehicle, and hence is a very positive development for the consumer.

I only hope that MSIL does not compromise on the design of the component in the first place. Many of the components that MSIL uses are inferior (grade of plastic, design of switches) but yet fully functional, for example, power window switches, Rubber beadings, roof linings etc.

MSIL needs to work on improving the quality of these components from a look and feel perspective, so that the final product feels more plush and classy.

[Karthik_S]

One could always use better quality, +1 MSIL

A related question for the folks with Manufacturing know-how : How realistic is Zero Defects - low parts-per-million (PPM) seems to be the way to go, but Zero Defects might just be utopian ?

[Dr.Naren]

Let me put it down in a simple way.

1. Maruti engineers will design the car and ask vendors to supply the required parts.

2. Maruti will test the car extensively for more than a year.

3. Maruti will finalise the vendors and release the car into market.

4. If you see any recall, it's about a particular batch. Vendors do not meet the same standards as before and this leads to recall.

5. By strict norms, Maruti is making sure that vendors do not compromise on standards. It is impossible for any manufacturer to test each batch of cars extensively.

[navpreet318]

I think there is a confusion as to why a recall is actually done.
A recall is done when a part fails in a similar fashion in multiple cars.

1. Now if there is a design failure the onus goes completely to the manufacturer and they make the changes and in fact partly credit, in monetary or kind terms, the vendor for any changes in the manufacturing die, fixtures etc.
This seldom happens as there is long procedure of testing cars before launching them. But non the less this is the procedure.

2. Part can also fail due to a manufacturing defect such as composition of alloy, plastic or part being slightly out of tolerance which fails later due to vibrations or usage or a heat treatment for hardening is not done properly.
For this the vendor has to be held responsible as they either did not keep a check on the manufacturing processes or the quality control in between processes was not done properly or the machines used were not checked for wear and tear or there was a lack of check on the incoming raw material.

If the vendor is not held accountable and penalized for this they will not feel the pinch and will continue to supply sub-standard/defective parts which will eventually reach us and fail when we are using the car.

Maruti suzuki uses a just in time process for its manufacturing. The incoming part reaches the assembly line at the exact time when the the car reaches the particular station. This is to enable low inventory costs etc. which eventually lead to the final decision of the price of the vehicle.

Now for this just in time process it is impossible to test each component. Just imagine last month maruti manufactured some 15k altos, 15k dzires, 9k swifts, and then a few more thousand other models. Now each car is made up of thousands of parts. How are they supposed to check each and every component at the plant?

Now coming to a typical vendor, they are supplying components to the tune of a few thousands each month. Now they can have a daily batch test, random batch test, test when the component is WIP, regular checks on incoming material, regular visits to sub-vendors.
There are very robust programs and processes for keeping quality in check and under normal circumstances for a normal operating plant it is very hard to loose quality of all processes are followed. A reason why plant heads and higher up people are fired on such instances.

Its a very transparent and simple process. Maruti or for that matter any manufacturer pays for proper quality confirming parts. It is a properly written agreement for quality of parts to be supplied. If they are not then the vendor must be penalized.

[John Jacob13128]

Originally Posted by navpreet318

I think there is a confusion as to why a recall is actually done.
A recall is done when a part fails in a similar fashion in multiple cars.

2. Part can also fail due to a manufacturing defect such as composition of alloy, plastic or part being slightly out of tolerance which fails later due to vibrations or usage or a heat treatment for hardening is not done properly.
For this the vendor has to be held responsible as they either did not keep a check on the manufacturing processes or the quality control in between processes was not done properly or the machines used were not checked for wear and tear or there was a lack of check on the incoming raw material.

Right step by the market leader. As pointed out by navpreet if the recall is due to quality , then the respective supplier has to bear the cost. There is no penalization if its design , since that lies with MSIL. This will push suppliers to raise the bar w.r.t. to quality & process. The more checks we have in Tier 3 ,2 ,1 the better the end product.

[Latheesh]

Originally Posted by John Jacob13128

This will push suppliers to raise the bar w.r.t. to quality & process.

Finally all these "raised bar" comes with a "raised price tag", vendors will add provision for these in the part costing.

[AutoNoob]

Originally Posted by Karthik_S

How realistic is Zero Defects - low parts-per-million (PPM) seems to be the way to go, but Zero Defects might just be utopian ?

The Zero Defects policy is not same as 0 PPM defect ratio. It basically works on a Japanese/ Korean concept of "don't accept faulty part, don't make faulty part, don't forward faulty part". Which essentially focusses on training of workers/ operators to be quality inspectors in addition to manufacturing process owners. As a result, a part/ process may be faulty/ defective for some reason, but the affected part will be positively identified and handled as per procedure. Thus, only zero defect parts are passed onto the customer. Also, the manufacturing setup (machines, jig, fixtures, conveyors etc.) are upgraded to achieve lower PPM.

An important aspect of manufacturing that people usually tend to forget is logistics. I have handled many cases where parts 'Certified OK' from the manufacturer developed fault during transportation. The primary reasons are damaged/ insufficient packaging or inappropriate handling (e.g. cars getting damaged during shipment to dealers). So, maintaining quality in logistics also an important aspect.

Originally Posted by Latheesh

Finally all these "raised bar" comes with a "raised price tag", vendors will add provision for these in the part costing.

Exactly. No one can operate on losses infinitely. In case some supplier is not able to meet the basic profitability, the matter can be raised to the OEM.

AFAIK, even OEMs don't want good suppliers to suffer losses. If a good supplier is down, tremendous efforts are needed to revive it or develop a new one as competent as the former.

[navpreet318]

When the initial costing of a product is done it is not a tender system that someone quotes a particular price and the OEM takes a decision. The first thing that is done is develop prototypes and send them to the OEM for testing.
Once it is approved then a detailed cost analysis is done. Each and every component of the cost is analysed. If one or more sub vendors are involved then they too are included and their raw material costing and value addition is calculated.
Each value addition that is cost of each operation on the component from raw material to finished good including costing of quality checks at various points is calculated. A quantity of profit is added and then the price is agreed on.
Each year the OEM sourcing team works closely to streamline processes even more and try and reduce the costs even more.

NO vendor can claim that they need a price increase due to quality rejects. That is just not entertained. A simple question is asked- "Why is there rejection in the first place when the whole process leads to zero rejections?" It will be a matter of shame of a vendor who claims that they need a price increase due to rejections. OEM's like Toyota and Hyundai are even more strict than MSIL. Rejections does not mean less or no business, it means absolute Blacklisting of the vendor!

Hence the question of price rise due to quality issues like rejections is dismissed.
The price is fixed for a particular quality/tolerance of component. They want no more no less. Just exact that much quality.

[John Jacob13128]

Originally Posted by Latheesh

Finally all these "raised bar" comes with a "raised price tag", vendors will add provision for these in the part costing.

Yes , it might call for incremental costs, but OEM's are very cost conscious , esp MSIL. They wont just bring such a strategy and then increase cost at the end of the day - with no visible value addition to the car. Taking the bigger picture into account this will only bring about a better QC practices into the industry. Just my thoughts

[Karthik_S]

Thank you AutoNoob!

This is fascinating for a software guy who's Quality Assurance processes can afford to be a little more lax.

I can't imagine a direct impact to the pricing like some of the other comments suggest, but I can fully understand and appreciate why the manufacturer (MSIL) would want this new approach introduced.

Wonder if there are any suppliers in the forum who'd like to comment on the impact they expect to see on such a change? It is unlikely that they would just walk away from a company like MSIL because of this new process.

I would imagine this would introduce more stress in the entire supply chain, not to mention added pressure if the onus of QC along with Assembly is passed on to the workers on the assembly line.

Think I found my weekend reading material now.

Originally Posted by AutoNoob

The Zero Defects policy is not same as 0 PPM defect ratio. It basically works on a Japanese/ Korean concept of "don't accept faulty part, don't make faulty part, don't forward faulty part". Which essentially focusses on training of workers/ operators to be quality inspectors in addition to manufacturing process owners. As a result, a part/ process may be faulty/ defective for some reason, but the affected part will be positively identified and handled as per procedure. Thus, only zero defect parts are passed onto the customer. Also, the manufacturing setup (machines, jig, fixtures, conveyors etc.) are upgraded to achieve lower PPM.

An important aspect of manufacturing that people usually tend to forget is logistics. I have handled many cases where parts 'Certified OK' from the manufacturer developed fault during transportation. The primary reasons are damaged/ insufficient packaging or inappropriate handling (e.g. cars getting damaged during shipment to dealers). So, maintaining quality in logistics also an important aspect.

[VeluM]

Originally Posted by AutoNoob

The Zero Defects policy is not same as 0 PPM defect ratio. It basically works on a Japanese/ Korean concept of "don't accept faulty part, don't make faulty part, don't forward faulty part". Which essentially focusses on training of workers/ operators to be quality inspectors in addition to manufacturing process owners. As a result, a part/ process may be faulty/ defective for some reason, but the affected part will be positively identified and handled as per procedure. Thus, only zero defect parts are passed onto the customer.

Thanks, this seems to have been adopted by Tata as part of their manufacturing process per the report here in 2013.

Image from the linked thread:



I always thought that Maruti had fairly fault-free cars, though now with the increased complexity of components this is a step in the right direction for them.

Originally Posted by AutoNoob

An important aspect of manufacturing that people usually tend to forget is logistics. I have handled many cases where parts 'Certified OK' from the manufacturer developed fault during transportation. The primary reasons are damaged/ insufficient packaging or inappropriate handling (e.g. cars getting damaged during shipment to dealers). So, maintaining quality in logistics also an important aspect.

Wonder who pics up the loss for a vehicle damaged in transit before it reaches the dealer. I always thought the manufacturer had responsibility until the vehicle was delivered to the dealer's yard/sales outlet, in which case this concept should be applied to the shipping/delivery process as well.

[GTO]

Originally Posted by Karthik_S

A related question for the folks with Manufacturing know-how : How realistic is Zero Defects - low parts-per-million (PPM) seems to be the way to go, but Zero Defects might just be utopian ?

The first time I heard that term was over a decade back and it was because of Sundaram. It consistently received the best supplier award from GM year after year. Apparently, Sundaram was the top 'zero defects' supplier GM had. And this was in the nineties, when India still wasn't as developed or industrialised. GM had set a target of 125 defective caps / million. In its first shipment, Sundaram did 123. 2nd = 23. 3rd = None.

If Sundaram could do it then, I don't see why anyone can't in today's era of technology.

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=...epage&q&f=true

[Asish_VK]

Originally Posted by Karthik_S

One could always use better quality, +1 MSIL

A related question for the folks with Manufacturing know-how : How realistic is Zero Defects - low parts-per-million (PPM) seems to be the way to go, but Zero Defects might just be utopian ?

Its pretty realistic (ish) once your process is robust . To achieve this, there are lot of complex procedures to be followed during your process development stage itself . Before you finalize the process to manufacture a part, rigorous testing is done.

OT:

For eg: A mass production part of 1000's per day, its impossible to inspect each and every part, thus 6 sigma or process capability


Following is just an outline of how its done:


Gauge R&R , FMEA etc are conducted in first place

After initial corrections to process, a batch of defined number of parts (depends on quality policy) are produced , usually from 32 to 100's and inspected for 100%

The standard deviation is calculated for all dimensions and Cp, Cpk (Process capability and Process capability index) values are calculated

If Cpk values achieved are within the specified limit (set by analyzing criticality vs cost factor), process can be termed as stable and precise

Once the process is achieved the desired stability, it continues to stay stable unless any changes made deliberately, or by any unforeseen causes (say materiel defects, machine failures etc.)

Once the Process is set, mass produced parts using this process will be inspected by sampling method, (Sample size set by the QMS as required), any defective parts within the sample leads to complete rejection of entire batch or appropriate measures , making sure only acceptable parts reach the user.

Zero defect is not theoretically possible as per 6 sigma , the least is 3.4 defects per million opportunities.

May be a bit confusing , but 6 sigma is an interesting topic to learn, there are lot of online websites to check out, please have a look.

Above example is for an manufacturing firm, but it will be similar with some tweaks to any industries

[Thilak29]

We all know for real that zero defect in only a ultimate nirvana state and not realistic considering multitude of parameters that may cause failures. However, I know there would be clauses in classification of defects which will allow these vendors to slip through. Also, if Maruti is so keen on sticking accountability and no defect - can they also enforce same on dealers/service centers too?
But in whole circle, i wonder what are Maruti's liabilities ? Just assembling parts tight?