Quality doesn't cost, it pays!

The cost of repairs often exceed the cost of the initial fabrication. The money saved by detecting errors as early as possible means time, energy, man-power, and money is not expended on materials or assembles that do not meet the criteria of the contract.

I currently have a client that did not perform the inspections required by their contract due to an oversight during the contract review. Now that the project is completed and ready for testing the oversight has been discovered. The cost of disassembling the unit, removing the paint, removing panels that conceal certain welds, etc. is more expensive than simply fabricating a new unit at a cost of $25000 dollars of direct labor and materials. That doesn't include the cost of the lost production time that could have been spent on the next project. In other words, the cost is more like $40,000 when the cost of "lost opportunity" is taken into consideration.

The best example I can think of happened about twenty years ago. A company that fabricated the materials failed to perform visual examination of the material before shipping it to the site. Because it was considered to be a manufactured item it wasn't subject to field inspection. I notified the project manager that there was a serious problem with the materials when it arrived on site. I told the PM that I hadn't performed any inspections, but it was apparent that there were problems when I saw the materials unloaded and stored on-site.

At the PM's request, ten welds were selected at random were inspected and a report generated. Nine of the ten welds were rejected based on the requirements of D1.1 (used for the sake of comparison). After looking into the problem further it was discovered that the manufacturer stated the materials were designed and fabricated per AISC which opened them to field inspection. Another third party inspector was retained by the manufacturer to examine the material after it was erected. The repairs were completed and then I, representing the owner, did a follow up inspection to ensure nothing was inadvertently missed. The bottom line is that the manufacturer stated  that it cost them 4 times the original price (in excess of $1.5 million) just to repair the rejected materials. Not only did the manufacture lose money, but their reputation suffered a severe blow as well.

As I said, a good QC program can save a company many times what it costs to fund the QC program. However, a poor QC system is going to fail to live up to expectations every time.

Best regards - Al

Hi All,

It seems to me that if I write and qualify a PQR, I can write as many WPS's against it as I like (with in it's limits), and qualify as many welders as I like (within it's limits).  I could qualify as many welders as I like using different welding machines at one location, providing the machines are calibrated.

What would be the difference if I had a PQR and wrote a million WPS's, qualified a billion welders against it, (within it's limits), but at thousands of different organizations, provided the equipment was calibrated? 

My PQR's, WPS's, and Qualification's are mine  (copy write law?).  I certainly can use 'em, or tweak 'em.  I'll save my customers every dime I can.

Keith

Hello Kip;

As you say, those are decisions each company has to make. They weigh the risks and act accordingly. Every job is different and each project has different requirements, i.e., codes, regulations, statues, etc. that have to be met. Those decisions are beyond the realm of responsibility of the CWI.

The question has to be asked, "does the customer get what he wants?" If the answer is "Yes", the goal has been met. Hopefully, a profit is recognized when all is said and done and no laws or contractual obligations have been violated. The dirty laundry doesn't get aired unless there is an injury, loss of life or unless there is an obvious attempt to defraud the owner. Should that be the case, the lawyers come out of the wood work and nothing is considered to be "industry practice". 

The one thing that wasn't addressed by our discussion is how the laws and regulations of the country, state, or city are met or violated. How do the local laws and regulations affect business and how business is conducted? Again, those issues should be recognized and addressed on a case by case basis by the owner and the contractor.

I'm not dismissing the sharing of WPSs, I'm simply saying there can be unexpected consequences of doing so unless all the project requirements and risks are known and given due consideration. As long as all the interested parties are aware of the requirements and all are in agreement, go for it. Just don't do it without understanding the consequences.

I'm always amazed at the herd mentality that can make a group of people (in a meeting) agree to something that if polled individually, any one individual in the group would reject without a second thought.  As a group, they make choices that none of them would make acting alone. Interesting. I remember working as a Fabrication Manager in one company, the Director of Manufacturing would ask the question, "Is there anyone here that doesn't believe this will work?"

One of my associates would quickly grab my arm and pull it down with the remarks, "He only wants to hear from people that agree with him. Do you want to keep us here all night? Unless your going to kiss his butt, keep your mouth shut!"

It got to the point where my friends would sit to either side of me at-the-ready to grab my arms at the first hint of them being "cocked to pop". :) The director would look my way to see if I was going to cast a dissenting vote, but my arms would be firmly immobilized before I could pop one into the air. ;) That's when I first became familiar with the term "Job Suicide"!

I wonder how many times the same type of comments could be heard during some of the meetings in Detroit?

Best regards - Al