The report card blues.... (and bringing up the grade).

Any teenager forced to divulge a less-than-desirable report card to a grim-faced father undoubtedly wished at times that the grading system had never been invented.

But as adults, we recognize that nothing gets improved until it's measured. And in the info age, everything is measured, surveyed and polled.

As of January, the casting quality report card was out, and the result was, let's just say, more in the "stay after school category" than one of congratulation.

Two surveys of more than 500 purchasing officials in the Jan. 11 issue of Purchasing magazine (which has surveyed purchasers for about 10 years), gave a glimpse as to how castings are doing.

As part of the "Quality scorecard on 20 commodities," with a best possible 4.0 score, castings received a 2.8--the worst of 15 mechanical and five electrical components studied. Dropping from a 3.0 two years ago, this year's findings revealed only 9% of buyers rated castings as excellent, while 58% and 33% ranked them as good and fair, respectively. While no one rated castings as poor, of the components receiving an "excellent" grade, they tied for second-to-last place (saved from the dubious honor only by forgings).

Even less encouraging news was found in the magazine's "Metals Report Card." Appearing as separate items, castings (D+) and die castings (C+) received the poorest marks in a field that also included carbon and alloy steels; specialty steels; aluminum; copper; brass and bronze; superalloys; and titanium. Castings received these editors' remarks: "Rating has tanked!...Non-automotive buyers are unhappy with steel and nonferrous product they've received in recent months."

The article included these purchasers' comments on castings: "Castings are of inconsistent quality. They'll be good, bad, then return to good for no apparent reason. In this industry, quality hasn't changed much."..."Suppliers are ISO 9000, yet in daily practice, there appears to be carelessness when addressing problems of sawed inclusions, porosity and laps. Quality remains stable."..."We've had difficulty finding iron casting sources willing to hold SAE-hydraulic dimensional tolerances."

Castings aren't alone in lower grades (overall assessments are down), but they fall further down the scale. On the commodity scorecard, castings' 2.8 grade compares with: 2.9 in '94, 3.0 in '93, 2.9 in '92 and 3.0 in '91. Likewise, castings' history in the metals only grades includes: C+ in '94, D+ in '93, D in '92 and D- in '91--finishing last each year.

With foundries scrambling at near-crested capacity to meet demand for two years, it's possible that quality and service may not have continuously improved parallel to customers' expectations. But these survey results seem to glimpse a vent of frustration rather than true performance. A major casting buyer recently told me "any foundry receiving a D+ wouldn't be one of our casting suppliers for long." His foundries, he said, are currently graded at a B-.

It's easy to rebut poor assessments, perhaps noting that castings shouldn't be. compared to commodities, problems are rarely caused solely by the foundry, and that I too would be reluctant to provide perfect grades to modern casting's production suppliers, knowing the room for improvement. We all know the nuances, biases and lack of mandate that can be relayed through such surveys.

Unfortunately, surveys don't profile the foundry doing everything right. Surveys do, however, remind us that every shoddy casting arriving at a customer's door grinds away at the entire industry's image. Tired of seeing castings take it on the nose, it's every foundry's responsibility to change the perception.

Some may curse such surveys (and as one who's published them myself, I've experienced that natural reaction), but we shouldn't look to "kill the messenger," or act like the students who fight to coerce their teacher into changing their math grade rather than studying more. Showing us how we're perceived--by the ones writing the checks and impacting tomorrow's specification of components--these surveys arm us with the knowledge to change. One could argue the report card is devised not so much for the perennial A-student, but rather as a wake-up call for those who must improve.

Whether we agree with our marks is a debate not worth our time--it's what we do with this information that matters. What can you do to improve the industry's grade next time around?