Quality engineer reveals what REALLY goes on in auto factories today in exclusive interview

People move from company to company very frequently these days. It is estimated that close to 20% of people move to another location every year which makes retailers scramble to keep their database current. Therefore, one cannot judge the competence of someone on the basis of the number of times he has changed jobs. Chances are that people move for a career advancement or a better offer. People who have had many jobs are more rounded in their experience and have had a chance to learn more from their failures.

On the subject of quality, it is an issue if a manufacturer does not have a proper quality regime in place and therefore produces products of highly variable and unpredictable "quality", thereby totally annoying their customers.

Comfort, reliability, and durability are most important to me and I expect the manufacturer to deliver the quality his brand promises.

Is that a pic of Jason behind the wheel....?

As a quality professional who has worked as both a Quality Manager and a Quality Engineer in numerous industries, including automotive, I have to say this article is incredibly poor in both research and information.

First off, the entire article is based on an interview with one person. Why didn't the author bother to talk with more people, perhaps the Quality Manager or the Senior Engineer, both mentioned by "Jason" during the interview?

It is based solely on the viewpoint of "Jason", who frankly sounds as if he may hold some personal grudges. For example, Jason mentions that he had some ideas for improving things, but the Quality Manager 'shrugged it off' and said 'maybe in the future'. Typically speaking, instituting changes to a process that require not only more man-hours, but the addition of an entirely new position as well do take time: requests for the expenditure need to be written, justified, and approved. Nor does "Jason" make any mention as to whether or not his ideas would have required additional equipment or other expenditures.

At another point, he mentions that his "personal" ethics wouldn't allow him to approve things, so the Senior Quality Engineer would sign off instead. The American Society for Quality has a Code of Ethics that quality professionals take very seriously. Especially in an industry as strict as the automotive, I find it incredibly hard to believe that the Senior Engineer or Quality Manger would sign off on something that would compromise quality in any significant manner. Many lower-level Quality employees tend to think in black and white - which is how their managers want them to think - but there are grey-area decisions that sometimes must be made by those with more experience, more understanding of the overall picture, and more contact with the customer base. Lower-level employees may not always understand why a certain decision was made; that does not mean that the decision was in any way wrong, or even questionable.

Overall I found this to be a very disappointing article offering absolutely nothing of real substance.

Adrienne

Damikco, by the way, very often in manufacturing the title "Engineer" is really nothing more than that, a title. "Quality Engineer" does not necessarily mean that individual has an Engineering degree - in Quality this is actually fairly rare - nor does it mean that individual is certified by the American Society for Quality. Going solely by his title is not a good indicator that he has skills which are highly in demand, or that are not very easily replaced.

"very often in manufacturing the title "Engineer" is really nothing more than that, a title. "Quality Engineer" does not necessarily mean that individual has an Engineering degree"

So true. The title "engineer" is bestowed way too often anymore.

I wanted to make another point, too. "Jason" says that the domestic company "would cut corners, and many times they would sacrifice quality".

He goes on to describe an incident where there was a potential problem with a part, but the GM said to keep producing so they could meet quota. After producing five lots, it was determined that the parts were in fact no good, so the parts were not used.

Certainly the company cost itself some extra money, but the quality of the finished product was not at all compromised if the parts were never used.

The fact that this story lacks an objective and documented authority makes it lack any credibility regardless of my agreement or disagreement with the opinions expressed.