Component part quality assurance concerns and standards

Abstract

Abstract Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to provide practitioners of management with a comparative analysis of how two global firms ensure quality standards in new product development/new product manufacturability processes and manage design changes in reduced product life cycles in the current economic recession. Design/methodology/approach – The firms selected were: Newell Rubbermaid, a high‐volume manufacturer with a diverse product offering, designing and manufacturing consumer products for large retail customers, and General Electric Healthcare Coils, a low‐volume manufacturer of a niche product for the magnet resonance imaging medical diagnostic systems. This case study presented a review of the quality steps performed when they are faced with a design change to a part, benchmarking their quality processes with the highest industrial standards possible. Findings – The effective managing of engineering change has always been difficult, time consuming, and a regular source of inefficiency and irritation for manufacturers. Best‐in‐class companies understand that better change processes can drive top‐line benefits and the two distinct companies have developed very similar processes through effective industrial benchmarking activities that result in improving speed to market while maintaining high‐quality standards. Practical implications – The component part design revision processes are well documented between the two firms, with an appropriate comparative analysis. Originality/value – Corporate management has demonstrated a commitment to component part quality throughout the development and redesigns processes and has earned and maintained the reputation of best‐in‐class manufacturing in their respective fields. Through successful quality assurances and collaboration processes, the companies studied found stability in a very turbulent financial and service‐orientated marketplace.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 15 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.