Readers of this column are a gentle lot and not likely to run afoul of criminal law but can end up in a similarly frustrating situation that limits their working life.

In these highly competitive times, it may seem as though improving productivity is the key to market share. Manufacturers often focus on improving productivity and managing, controlling and reducing costs. 

Almost 30 years ago the Construction Industry Institute (CII) researched the “Costs of Quality Deviations in Design and Construction,” and concluded that, “The average cost of rework on industrial projects exceeds 12%.” Design deviations accounted for about 80% of the increased cost and construction deviations only 20%.

In 2011, Sipho Tjabadi, general manager, Eskom Quality Management, South Africa, spoke at the ASQ Audit Division Conference. To punctuate his keynote address’s points, Tjabadi brought a video titled “The Cost of Quality.”

Albert Einstein is widely credited as having defined insanity as “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” 

Cost of quality is often misunderstood, improperly measured, and underutilized.

In automotive manufacturing, reducing quality costs can be like trying to bail out a leaking boat. You can empty bucket after bucket over the side, but you can’t get above water until you plug the leaks themselves.

Too often users of precision measuring instruments and gages end up with the wrong equipment and don’t find out until it’s too late. ‘Too late’ means after rejects are detected by in-house measurements or in worst case scenarios, by their customer.

Picture a plant that requires inspectors, a team of rework staff, and a large area devoted to parts that need rework.

Many companies have established incoming inspection to measure, evaluate, or audit purchased components and raw material to ensure conformance to quality standards and performance requirements.