Quality Fade

[unixronin]

Or, "Don't buy ANYTHING manufactured in China."

That part you're outsourcing the manufacture of?  It's perfectly safe, because they're making it to your design and specifications, right?  Well, they were when they started.  Does it still meet your specs now?

Some quality issues are not all that serious, but others are downright frightening.  One of the most disturbing examples I have encountered while working in China involved the manufacture and importation of aluminum systems used to construct high-rise commercial buildings.  These are the systems that support tons of concrete as it is being poured, and their general stability is critical.

The American company that designed and patented the system engineered all key components.  It knew exactly how much each part was supposed to weigh, and yet the level of engineering sophistication did not stop the supplier from making a unilateral decision to reduce the specifications.  When the "production error" was caught, one aluminum part was found to be weighing less than 90% of its intended weight.

That small appliance.  It carries UL, CSA and TUV product-safety ratings.  But is what they're manufacturing now the same internally as what UL and TUV tested?  Maybe not:

Third-party testing is far from fail-safe. Consider one study conducted by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission in 2001. In a review of nearly 200 recalled electrical products from China, the CPSC found that more than 25% had had prior approval by an international third-party testing agency such as Underwriters Laboratories (UL), Intertek Testing Services (ETL) or the Canadian Standards Association (CSA).

The final paragraph of the article contains the telling phrase:  "Race to the bottom."  The quest for cheaper and cheaper suppliers to reduce costs and increase short-term profits conveniently ignores the old adage that you get what you pay for — if you're lucky.  If you're only willing to pay your suppliers for sows' ears, don't expect to get silk purses.

Comments

[pernishus.livejournal.com]

Well, I guess what I'll remark here is that exactly the same practices are pursued by suppliers here in the US -- and that the motto has been "Caveat emptor" from at least Roman times... I viewed the business practices of a major US department store with respect to its suppliers in the 1960s in detail from both sides of the supplier/suppli-ee fence -- and the shady/shoddy went both ways, I can assure you.

I do find that the US is awfully quick to criticize other countries, and awfully slow to clean up its own act... a glance at the continuing problems in the wake of the hurricanes should suffice.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Very true, but I think there's a little more recourse against US vendors and suppliers. They at least nominally have to comply with US law and aren't allowed to, for instance, cut foods and medicinal products with poison. (Or, as has happened at least once, outright substitute poisonous chemicals for medicinal compounds because the propylene glycol was cheaper than glycerin and looked just the same. Though to be fair to China, heads literally rolled over that one.)

[cipherpunk.livejournal.com]

Agreed. While I am certainly no fan of the courts system, the fact remains that it's still useful. Knowing that a lawsuit is at best a mutually assured destruction scenario, it gives people an incentive to not give the other guy a reason to hit the Big Red Switch.

The United States courts system is horribly broken: yet, due to the particular way in which it is broken, it is still marginally useful.