by Cindy Barrager

T he quest for quality certification leads organizations down an endless road of documentation that includes production part approvals, control plans, failure mode and effects analysis and more. To the victor go the spoils--in this case, an ISO 9000 and/or QS-9000 flag and the right to supply parts to large customers. Theoretically, quality certification tells potential customers that the organization has implemented the proper standards and controlled processes to provide the highest quality product with few or no defects.

 For many companies, this concentration on quality has improved products and overall customer satisfaction. However, some still encounter defective parts and processes and the resulting customer complaints. For these companies, plant floor quality processes have improved--increasing plant efficiency two- or threefold. Engineering and design problems, however, maintain a steady stream of dissatisfied customers.

 To resolve these engineering and design issues, quality experts believe companies must apply quality planning methodology throughout the product-development process. Computer and information technologies have provided manufacturers with the means to improve quality processes from design through manufacturing while decreasing product-development time and capturing knowledge from past successes and failures for future products.

 "Now that manufacturing has a strong grip on its quality issues, it's time for companies to focus their resources on advanced quality planning," says Brandon Kerkstra, a quality and environmental trainer and consultant with Management Solutions Group in Grand Rapids, Michigan. "That's where manufacturers will see their best return on investment." Kerkstra, formerly of Entela Inc.'s Quality Systems Registration Division and BSI, says many companies lack proper advanced product quality planning (APQP) tools and training.

Automotive quality is still staggering

 Clarence Ditlow's May 18, 2000, article in the Detroit Free Press described U.S. automobile manufacturers' continued quality "inferiority" to their Japanese and European counterparts. The story responded to a J.D. Power and Associates survey of year 2000 model vehicles. Of the top 25 ranked vehicles, only one was produced by a U.S. manufacturer. The Lexus, Toyota and Mercedes-Benz brands dominated the survey's top spots, while most of the domestic cars fell somewhere below the industry average. Similarly, Consumer Reports placed only three U.S.-made automobiles on its list of 39 "good bets."

 "I really don't see any change in quality," says Ditlow, executive director of the Center for Auto Safety. "Their (U.S. car manufacturers') quality control on the assembly line might be a little better, but in terms of engineering mistakes, they keep making them."

 These findings seem puzzling to U.S. automakers. More ISO 9000 and QS-9000 flags and banners are flown in Detroit than are Michigan state flags. Quality engineers and consultants are in high demand as suppliers of all sizes seek to do business with DaimlerChrysler, Ford Motor Co. and General Motors.

 "I've received more calls asking for APQP help than I could have ever imagined," says Kerkstra. "Manufacturers are starting to realize they have to take the next step." In the Detroit Free Press article, Ditlow refers to mass automobile recalls by the Big Three for part failures, such as defective seals, as proof of quality problems. "That's not a manufacturing defect," Ditlow points out. "That's a design and engineering defect."

 Quality experts believe that the new ISO 9001:2000 standard, with proper training and tools, should quell defects traceable to engineering and design. "ISO 9001:2000 really focuses companies on advanced quality planning," notes Kerkstra. "It sets up multidisciplinary teams to maintain concurrent communication within the product-development cycle."

Management's quality goals

 Management-level objectives regarding the implementation of quality procedures and standards have always determined whether their company realizes increased quality. "Many companies set earning the ISO 9000 or QS-9000 flag as their goal," says Kerkstra. "They lose sight of the main goal of satisfying customers by improving product quality."

 Quality documenting tools such as design failure mode and effects analysis (DFMEA), design verification plan and report (DVP&R), process flows, process failure modes and effects analysis (PFMEA), control plans, and work instructions give the designers and manufacturers value-added benefits. Many of the documents, such as those for production part approvals and control plans, are required by customers prior to any business transaction.

Unfortunately, the value of the available quality planning tools and training diminishes when manufacturers don't use them to focus on quality planning. "That's why development costs, rework, and customer dissatisfaction numbers remain high," explains Kerkstra. "Many manufacturers fall into the rut of completing these documents just to get the business. They're missing the whole point of the documents."

Software for quality planning

 Software, information and database technology provide manufacturers with tools that guide them through the advanced quality planning process while simultaneously producing mandatory quality documents and instructions.

 "Most engineers spend 50 percent to 70 percent of their time creating quality documentation," says Hari Agarwal, president of AEC International Inc., a quality consulting and training firm based in Elkhart, Indiana. "With the right software and training, engineers can get back to engineering."

 Agarwal is quick to point out that not all quality control tools assist with quality planning goals. "The reason many manufacturers aren't concentrating on quality planning is that their software doesn't let them," he contends.

 Agarwal says the best tool software can provide an engineer is the ability to develop a good characteristic matrix. "APQP and PPAP remind you to create a good characteristics matrix," he explains. "Once you understand your characteristics, you'll be able to address the strengths and weaknesses in your processes."

 Software based on strong quality methodologies provides a medium between manufacturing and design processes. For example, communication between the DFMEA and DVP&R results in failure detections that can be addressed in the DFMEA. This information gives the manufacturing group access to the engineering documentation, allowing concurrent development of the PFMEA. The manufacturing group can then relay design questions back to engineering. Teams consisting of design engineers, manufacturing engineers and operators can communicate in real time using the software's common database.

Quality planning and concurrent engineering

 The communication that quality control software provides among design and manufacturing engineers strongly supports another trend in product development: concurrent engineering (CE). As with quality, everyone has his or her own definition of concurrent engineering. The Society of Concurrent Engineering (SOCE) describes it as "a systematic approach to the integrated, concurrent design of products and their related processes, including manufacturing and support." Simply stated, CE involves the communication of both design and manufacturing personnel throughout the entire product-development process (see Figure 1).

 For example, the automotive industry's need to shift its quality focus from manufacturing to engineering and design has placed added pressure on suppliers to adopt concurrent engineering practices. Additionally, today's competitive market demands short product development cycles, meaning problems must be detected earlier in the development process. Design engineers, manufacturing engineers and operators must work
cooperatively to meet customer expectations.

 According to SOCE, manufacturers using concurrent engineering practices are realizing 30–70 percent less product-development times, 65–90 percent fewer engineering changes, 200–600 percent higher quality, 20–90 percent less time to market and 20–110 percent higher white-collar productivity. These benefits result in better product quality for less money--and an increased profit margin.

 Index Sensors & Controls, a Redmond, Washington-based company, designs and manufactures custom products for harsh environmental factors including heat, cold, vibration and shock. Index designs and manufacturers all of its specialized products for its customers--including John Deere, Volvo and Caterpillar--in product development teams that include design engineers, materials-operations, manufacturing engineers and sales.

 "Internally, our attitude is that we would rather participate in the process than have it happen to us," explains Jim Shaw, director of manufacturing at Index. "We make decisions as a team."

 Index uses software from Integral Solutions Inc. to ensure document and information accuracy and consistency. "ISI's software allows us to share information electronically between designers and manufacturers," says Shaw. "You have to have the right tools to communicate between engineering functions."

 Index's product development team uses ISI's MPACT and DPACT software to track changes made during product development. "MPACT and DPACT help define and track expectations from the beginning of the process," notes Shaw. "Each time we make changes, the software tools assist in evaluating how they will affect our goals and approach."

 Without the ability to communicate through software tools, the DFMEA and DVP&R are completed independently--without the visibility or input of the manufacturing team. Design revisions are often made solely on the basis of testing without re-evaluation of risk and may lead to high warranty expenses and customer dissatisfaction. Designs are completed and tooling is begun, only to reveal that the part can't be manufactured, causing design revisions or rework. Similar experiences may unfold in the manufacturing facilities. Design changes are recorded on the control plans and the PFMEAs but not on the operator instructions, causing the operator to make incorrect parts. These problems cost enterprises billions of dollars per year and evolve because of lack of communication and access to current information.

 Quality software, based on a global database, reduces cycle time and resource requirements. The database becomes the framework of the quality information system. One company, for example, tracked its resource investment before and after the development of its relational database and found that, before the database was installed, the simple task of getting the specifications on a part took three days. The engineer had to refer to printed procedures and manufacturing files that were all stored in different locations. After the database installation, the same task required only minutes. The return on investment was tremendous.

 An additional advantage is the information's availability where it must be used: at the operator level. The operator's online instruction set always contains the latest specifications because it's generated from the common database. Operators, using real-time information, are able to monitor and determine the quality of their output--the first step for continuous improvement.

The concurrent engineering model

 The product development model that inspired ISI's quality control and engineering software can be used by any industry for the development of any product. Advanced quality planning guides users through this process. Software allows manufacturers to share information--in real time--at other steps of the process, ensuring that manufacturers are aware of design changes.

The cornerstone of both the manufacturing and design portions of the process is product definition. At this stage, the product and its consumer will be determined, as will justification for the product's development. Defining the product also requires materials and parts planning.

 Designers then determine product requirements, including functionality, aesthetics and expectations. Using these requirements, manufacturers develop a process flow determining the sequence of events necessary to produce the part.

 From this stage, both designers and manufacturers must determine failure modes for the part. Designers concentrate on what each item is expected to do, how and why it could fail and the best ways to detect and prevent failure. Similarly, manufacturers examine how failures could occur during part production.

 Designers then determine if the part is doing what it's expected to do and if all parts are interacting properly. They also determine, while completing the DVP&R, whether testing methods are providing the necessary information at this stage. Manufacturers produce a control plan at this point in the process to ensure that the part is manufactured correctly. Containment and corrective and preventive actions are input at this stage. The ability for this process to share information with design processes and previous manufacturing processes can save companies millions of dollars by reducing scrap and rework.

 Finally, operator instructions are produced on the manufacturing side, describing specifically how machine and tool operators are to complete the job most efficiently.

 The knowledge learned from the interaction of designers and manufacturers during the product development process can then be captured and used for future products. No longer are companies reliant on their engineers retaining the knowledge of past products, reducing the effects of employee turnover.

Tomorrow's techno tools

 Thousands of companies worldwide are developing products in time periods they never thought possible while using traditional linear engineering methods. Equally, the development of easily implemented tools supporting concurrent engineering and advanced quality planning eliminates the traditional reasons for avoiding the switch. ISO 9000:2000's concentration on advanced quality planning, as well as increased competition and the ongoing battle for customer satisfaction, will boost the prevalence of the methodologies and tools supporting concurrent engineering.

About the author

 Cindy Barrager is a quality and methodology consultant for Integral Solutions Inc., a quality control and engineering software firm. Formerly a design and manufacturing engineer, her experience in the quality field began in 1986 when ISI was contracted by Ford's transmission and chassis division to streamline its quality systems, including APQP methodology and ISO 9000/QS-9000. E-mail Barrager at cbarrager@qualitydigest.com .