Process manufacturers commonly consider numerous costs like labor, materials, and manufacturing and impact their bottom line. Often the same companies will overlook or undervalue the cost of quality, assuming that products that fall within specifications also meet quality targets. However, simply relying on conformance without examining the cost of quality can result in a few hidden expenses at best---and at worst, amount to considerable waste, negatively impacting the bottom line and subtracting from brand reputation.
Specifications are the standards or the minimally accepted requirements for important features (or characteristics) of a product. Many manufacturers also set their own specifications. The confusion between specification compliance and quality can lead to financial loss, wasted time, and so on. For example, a product can fall within specifications but still prove unsatisfactory for clients. Additionally, manufacturers that rely solely on meeting specifications can miss out on opportunities to create more cost-effective processes. Thus, applying several statistical principles can immensely help a company identify ways to positively reform a process and product. By moving beyond the gauge parameters of specifications, manufacturers can boost quality with an efficient, optimized, and cost-effective process that performs better and satisfies the customer base.
Poor quality can waste a considerable portion of an organization’s operating budget. Alarmingly, some manufacturers even have the cost of poor quality factored into their budget, meaning these companies are willing to allow it to persist in plain sight and hinder their overall performance.
While there will always be some factors that affect quality to a certain degree, identifying and addressing the factors contributing to poor quality is critical. This ensures competitiveness, supports ongoing improvement efforts, and minimizes waste. Here’s a closer look at the unexpected costs related to poor quality, as well as how to measure and address them with a cost of quality analysis.
There was a time during the 1940s when working in the food industry was considered a “war job.” It was said that food was the mightiest weapon of them all. Eight decades later, that phrasing still holds. Yet, while it once referred to the power of keeping troops fed, the message is reversed: Food can also be the mightiest weapon of them all when used against us. The intention of the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) Intentional Adulteration Rule from the FDA is to prevent the mass harm that can be caused by contaminating the U.S. food supply.
Most process improvements start with plenty of momentum, but their changes don’t always stick. In fact, just 54% of major change initiatives stick long-term—a concerning statistic, considering the number of dedicated resources to these types of projects.
Whether you are a beginner to making digital process manufacturing improvements or a seasoned veteran, to enact change that lasts, we must identify why operational improvements don’t stick in the first place. Often, it’s not the tools used but the psychology behind the improvements that come up short. Improvement requires change, and to support that; we must accept that we aren’t perfect and recognize a need for change. Here, we’ll take a closer look at some of the barriers to change as well as ways to dismantle them.
At its core, manufacturing success is all about quality. Consistently adhering to quality standards ultimately delights your customers and takes you far beyond the benefits of brand loyalty. Determining the cost of quality (COQ) is a complex but essential endeavor; there’s the cost of poor quality to consider and the cost of good quality or preventing issues from happening in the first place. In plants producing hundreds of separate items, tracking the many variables that influence quality can feel like a massive undertaking. And of course, it’s not just tracking this information that facilitates change; the goal is to derive meaningful insights from the data to inform future decisions.
The Food & Beverage industry proved its resilience in 2020, perhaps more than any other time in history. Here at SafetyChain, we watched as companies overcame enormous pressures to keep shelves stocked and employees healthy in the midst of ever-evolving CDC updates and guidelines. While safety and agility have always been critical to success in the industry, COVID-19 called for quick thinking when supply chains were disrupted, as well as an even stronger commitment to safety - both of our food and employees.
Safe Quality Food (SQF) software is used by food and beverage companies to help satisfy the requirements set forth by the Safe Food Quality Institute (SFQI). It can be used to help ensure applicable program requirements are being met on an ongoing basis. Here, we take a closer look to help you determine whether SQF software is right for your company.
When evaluating the potential payoff of a QMS investment, Tracy Ouellet from Norima Consulting helps companies assess their potential return on investment, beginning with this this simple ROI calculation:
(Gain/Savings Achieved from the Investment – Cost of Investment) / (Cost of Investment)
Each food and beverage facility is different, with its own unique set of food safety and customer requirements to satisfy. With that said, there are many key performance indicators (KPIs) shared across the industry which are used to measure success.