|
|
Forums - News / General |
For General modelling or hobby-related topics that are not covered by any other specific forum. Please keep to topics concerning the hobby. |
| Topics | 2964 |
| Messages | 21973 |
|
|
| Subject: | Re: Model manufacturing question - mould degradation |  |
| Date: | Jul 12, 2006 |
| From: | John Barnicoat | |
A few comments on Michael's comments:
"Sink, flash and shorts effect all moulding operations and the only way to eliminate them is to have a quality control system that scraps the defective parts."
It's more effective to make quality part of the manufacturing process. Educated and experiencing manufacturing people know that it actually costs more and is less effective to add quality after the fact than to build it in from the start. That means robust design, carefully controlled processes, etc. right up front that will guarantee improved product quality, customer satisfaction and return-on-investment.
And what makes a part with flash "defective"? I don't hear anyone whine about wanting to return a model because of flash. They suck it up and handle it. By their nature kit parts get handled, cut, filed, drilled, etc. It goes with the job, if you don't want to do it a different hobby may be a better fit.
"For even the most basic automotive part you always have some form of problem and there are stringent standards as to how many defective parts a supplier will accept from a moulding firm. The number of defects is counted in parts per million (PPM) Yes that is parts per MILLION, say 10 or 20!"
PPM is actually based on statistical analysis and is usually a goal, and far less often a reality. It's a valid system to use, but a quality system that incorporates these standards requires a huge management and financial commitment, something an automotive company has the resources for, but probably not a model kit manufacturer. It's not reasonable to compare apples and oranges- that is, Ford and Trumpeter.
"The current standards are aimed at ZERO defects so I think any kit manufacturer who allows defective parts into the box clearly has far lower quality standards than the firm who make the simple lever that allows you to move your car seat back and forward."
Zero efects is a decades old methodology, and is by no means "current" on any large scale. It's little more than a catch-phrase and a goal that fades in and out of fashion, and has ultimately not proven itself to be any big deal. Few companys can say they have realized long term benefits from implementing a zero defects program. And to compare the quality standards of kit manufacturers with those of automotive companies is another apples and oranges scenario and is meaningless. There are far too many variables to consider, including functionality, fitness-for-use, appearance, ultimate effect on the user/customer, ultimate effect on the final assembly, etc.
"The only reason you get flash is because the moulder is too greedy to scrap the parts that have the flash. Even if the tool was worn and had a problem with flash you could run the tool at a lower specification and accept some shorts that would be reground. It seems these firms are packing everything."
A fairly worthless statement, IMHO and with all due respect. Who are "these firms" that you speak about that "pack everything"? I have over 200 kits, old and new, and they're not full of "everything".
Do you know the standards or acceptance criteria in use? What is the economic impact that must be considered by the kit maker for the different ways the supposedly "defective" parts could be handled? "No flash" may not be an option. Certainly shoot-from-the-hip statements like those above would be laughed at in a kit maker's corporate boardroom by senior executives who must make strategic decisions that affect their company and their customers. Most companies are savvy enough to know that they can not turn out crap because of their "greediness" at the risk of alienating their customer base and effecting the stability and growth of the company.
Just some comments based on my own experiences in senior manufacturing management positions and as a model nut for 40+ years.
John |
| |
|
|
 | Model manufacturing question - mould degradation - Bill Goodrich - Jul 12, 2006 |
| . . . Re: Model manufacturing question - mould degradation - Gerald Owens - Jul 12, 2006 |
| . . . . . . Re: Model manufacturing question - mould degradation - Christopher C. Tew - Jul 12, 2006 |
| . . . . . . . . . Re: Model manufacturing question - mould degradation - michael kenny - Jul 12, 2006 |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: Model manufacturing question - mould degradation - John Barnicoat - Jul 12, 2006 |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I've only seen one kit that badly done. - Hans haase - Jul 12, 2006 |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: Model manufacturing question - mould degradation - Kurt Laughlin - Jul 12, 2006 |
| . . . . . . Re: Model manufacturing question - mould degradation - Patrizio - Jul 13, 2006 |
| . . . . . . . . . Re: Model manufacturing question - mould degradation - Scott Dimmick - Jul 13, 2006 |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: Model manufacturing question - mould degradation - Patrizio - Jul 13, 2006 |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: Model manufacturing question - mould degradation - michael kenny - Jul 13, 2006 |
|
|
