How to achieve world-class quality.

Today's plastics processors compete in a global economy that imposes rigorous and everincreasing quality standards. We've all felt the push from both our customers and our own managements to respond. Whether we know it explicitly or not, our job descriptions have been expanded to include the notion of delivering repeatable, quality parts. As a molder, I believe that our collective response to date has been inadequate: "Do more of what we have been doing, only harder." The solution lies, rather, in increased appreciation of the uniqueness of thermoplastics as industrial materials and in an overhaul of both the traditional OEM/molder relationship and the traditional processes for procurement and production of plastic parts.

Custom molding has, in the last 10 to 15 years, evolved through four stages:

*Stage 1: Molders "squirt and ship" low-precision, high-variability "cheap plastic" parts.

*Stage 2: Molders squirt, inspect, and ship more consistent parts after eliminating rejects found through inspection.

*Stage 3: Molders add SPC control charts as an on-line quality-control method, get much better at rejecting parts, and become "good" molders. However, quality assurance is still mainly reactive in nature.

*Stage 4: Molders become truly world class" by establishing proactively (i.e., up-front and off-line) the necessary parameters for a "capable" process and maintaining them during production. At this stage, on-line SPC methods become merely a means of quality maintenance.

Overall, plastic molding is presently trying to evolve from a "reactive" Stage 3 to a "proactive" Stage 4. The two stages involve fundamentally different approaches to quality, and we molders face a difficult transition between the two. We need to recognize that many traditional norms of our business will sabotage our quest for "STS" (ship-to-stock) quality or capability.

Here are just three examples of potential sabotage through outdated attitudes. First molders and their OEM customers essentially have been adversaries. The OEM gets its price and quality through economic combat. By the Stage 3 level of development, OEMs may give lip service to some notion of partnership," but most often this means to them merely a consolidation of vendors without narrowing the gulf between OEM and molder.

The second problem is the notion that plastic is an industrial material like any other; and like any other vendor, molders should simply make parts to print without comment.

The third problem is the idea that molders are like streetcars: another one will come along any moment.

It should be clear that these attitudes are backward and self-defeating, and need to be overturned for our industry to reach Stage 4 molding. "World-class" thinking is as follows:

*OEMs and molders are essentially partners. In a strategic sense, they are extensions of one another, departments of the same company. Their mutual goal is consumer or end-user satisfaction.

*Thermoplastics are unique industrial materials whose successful processing necessarily involves tradeoffs--e.g., one dimension for another. There is an irony in plastics molding, namely that rigid OEM insistence on producing "parts to print," perhaps reasonable in other materials, virtually guarantees nonconformity in plastic parts. Often, OEMS don't understand that the phenomenon of differential shrinkage results in plastic parts that are out of dimension, even if the tool is cut to perfection. Joint OEM/molder decision-making and appreciation of the tradeoffs up front is essential for quality production.

*A world-class molder is hard to find and should be selected and rewarded for its particular hard-earned capabilities.

TODAY'S 'LINEAR' PROCUREMENT PROCESS

The wrong notions mentioned above are firmly embedded in today's procurement process, even at the level of Stage 3 molding. Parts buying is generally a linear process (with varying degrees of feedback) involving a sequence of steps something like these: final part design and material selection; tooling and part quote; molder selection; purchasing release; design, fabrication, and sampling of the mold (usually the molder's responsibility); first-article evaluation by the OEM; and release or resample decision.

To the extent that we cling to this process, or some close variation of it, the process itself will victimize us because it is flawed for five key reasons.

1. The process is sequential and feedback-limited. The players--Q-A people, part designers, purchasing agents, molders, moldmakers--all have insular roles. They come on stage, deliver their lines, and exit stage right.

2.The system is inflexible because, from the OEM'S point of view, all of the important decisions have been incorporated into the final part design. Production is a "simple" matter of finding a molder who can execute that design.

3. Because of the system's inflexibility, schedules are always tight and improvements, even if economically justified, can't be made if they cost time.

4. Problems are inevitable and they they appear late--usually at the partsampling stage when the process is supposed to be nearing completion and changes are most expensive. The trouble is that steel has been cut, the parts don't comply, and they're late, late, late. During the ensuing panic is often the only time all of our players meet--and then in the wee hours.

5. This tool-qualification panic exacts an emotional toll on everyone. The appearance of bad faith abounds. The OEM sees the molder as making phony commitments; and the molder, having quoted the job months ago and since then watched profits evaporate, sees the OEM as unreasonable but able to enforce his irrationality with economic might. This is not a decent way to live and certainly will not yield a world-class part or product.

CAE AS A TOOL FOR INTERACTION

These problems are inherent in our system and from time to time conspire to help us produce those notorious $50,000 boat anchors. There is, however, a better way. Suppose we could convene all of the characters--part designers, buyers, Q-A people, molders, mold designers, and moldmakers--up front, at the part-design stage, while there is still time and we are still on speaking terms. This would be a "radial" process, which could address all of the inherent difficulties of the traditional linear system.

To succeed, the characters need a means--a hub, if you will--about which to interact radially. Modern computeraided engineering (CAE) tools, which simulate the flow of material in the mold before the tool is cut, provide that means. With CAE at the hub, the radial interaction looks something like this:

1. Establish OEM's initial quality plan with the molder's team--people fluent in mold design, moldmaking, materials, and processing.

2. With the aid of CAE, review initial part design and quality plan with molder's team to ensure economic moldability, OEM manufacturability, and end-user quality requirements.

3. Revise part design and tolerances as needed, based on step 2 results.

4. Repeat steps 2 and 3 as necessary until satisfied.

5. Finalize part design.

6. Quote project.

7. Select capable molder.

Such a radial or "concurrent-engineering" process is vital to Stage 4 molding because it demands all concerned parties'up-front agreement on the attainable, repeatable requirements of the final part production. Beyond its benefits for quality, the radial system delays the pricing question until the parties are better informed.The OEM understands more precisely the molder's task and the no need to build uncertainties into its pricing (or assume big risks by "low-balling"). Perhaps the most telling benefit of a radial system with CAE at its hub comes at the point of mold qualification. The probability of success in first-article sampling is greatly enhanced by having simulated the mold's workings in the computer before committing the design to steel.

OEMs trying to evaluate a molder's capabilities should look beyond technical competence to certain intangibles": How clearly defined is the molder's whole quality program and how strong is his commitment to it? What ongoing investment does the molder make in training his people? Is the molder honest about what he can achieve? Does he promise to "deliver to the print" or is he "strong" enough to insist on discussing the tradeoffs? Affirmative answers to these questions indicate the right attitude, which, when combined with technical competence, identify a molder worth grabbing. Anything less is merely someone with press time to sell.

HANGING OEM ATTITUDES

Having found such a molder, the OEM itself must make changes to overturn Stage 3 thinking and the traditional linear procurement process. First, the OEM's part designers must recognize that the molder's ability to produce quality parts involves legitimate questions at the design stage. That is, quality isn't just molded in, it's designed in. Central to this notion is willingness to define, up front and for all concerned, the quality standards for a given part, recognizing the inherent tradeoffs.

Second, the OEM must recognize the complexity of the molding process and think of the molder as a valueadded department of its own firm.

Third, molders must be rewarded for their successful efforts in design and production. They must be selected for their capabilities for a particular job, and then involved deeply in the job and given reasonable certainty of actually getting the job as long as their pricing is competitive.

DTM Products is a 26-year-old custom injection molding firm specializing in precision thermoplastic molding for customers such as Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Apple Computer, Exabyte, Electromedics, and Teledyne Water Pik. DTM operates 13 injection machines from 55 to 400 tons, generating annual sales of over $5 million.