Have Chinese tool manufacturers already overtaken their western competitors?

[mino]

...
But very simple things may be beyond their capability. 

A case in point:  We ordered 500,000 welded D-rings from a Chinese vendor.  These were low-tech D-rings used to hold down trucking tarpaulins.

We got them in.  They looked great.  Our customer sewed them onto the tarps.  And then the failures started.  The welds were failing.

We tested the D-rings on our tensile tester and we were getting failures at 120 to 150 pounds of static load.  The D-rings had full penetration resistance welds. 

The identical D-ring produced in our factory typically bested 400 pounds before failure.  Our setups had a 390 pound before failure as a minimum.

We could not figure it out.  We sent the samples to a testing laboratory to find out what the type of steel was used.  (High carbon steel is particularly hard to resistance weld.)

The print called for C1008 - C1010 low carbon steel.  This is the “plain vanilla” of steel, and is generally the lowest cost steel available.

I got a phone call from the lab.  They said it was of no identifiable grade of steel and the chemical composition varied.  They said, “It looks like they just melted down some steel scrap and turned it into wire.

I did ask about the silicon content and that was substantially above acceptable.  Silicon will significantly compromise welds.

My point is, “this-project-is-so-simple-we-don’t-need-western-manufacturing-advice” is what got them in trouble. 
...

This story has nothing to do with capability and everything to do with assumptions in external sourcing. The more external/different the supplier, the more likely such an issue.

It is the most common issue with (starting) outsourcing. The original manufacturer has a lot of "properties" of stuff they make undocumented and production carries itself on "tribe knowledge", acquired some long, long time ago, maybe even a century, but never documented anywhere. Or even just basic "tribe knowledge" in an area which many call "common sense" without realising it is not really such.

Then there is a decision to order this externally (does not have to be overseas) and the procurement team does not specify the (presumed) requirement since it is not written down anywhere and in some cases the last person who would remember where the requirement came from may be in the grave even by then.

In this case, the source of the issue was not the supplier but your procurement team:
- the strength and material requirements were not adequately specified
- they were not checked /before use/
- random validation/test procedures on items passing between companies were not established

As a result, the supplier did the only (economically) correct thing: Asked for an under-specified item, thus they priced and made stuff that met the requirements specified - and only the requirements specified. Probably just that it should be steel and it should have some shape.

It is a mistake to infer a specific supplier capability from a mis-communication on a specific order. Judging a complete supply chain in this way is even more misguided.

Today, outside very-specific items where there is low production volumes and lots of empiric knowledge is required the Chinese manufacturing supply chain is something in front of which the whole German supply chain looks punny. Both on size and on breadth.

There are very few things one cannot get in China today - basically that is chip manufacturing tools in the 7 nm and smaller scale and related tooling and top end jet engines. Those are some of the very few things they do not have mastered. Yet. One may not be happy about that, but the reality is that in most fields the apprentice has surpassed the master by today. May still sell the stuff under his old master brand name, but it is the apprentice developing new versions and improving on them by now.

 

[woodferret]

In that weird story world, [All] Italian manufacturing is bunk because some company decided to file fake parts for Boeing.  Gotcha.

 

[luvmytoolz]

My point is, “this-project-is-so-simple-we-don’t-need-western-manufacturing-advice” is what got them in trouble. 

Which is why I say that difficult jobs work fine from China; it is the simple jobs that will trip them up.

A really funny one I came across a few years back was Ikea had a range of drinking glasses that had a geometric raised pattern around the outside of the glass. As usual you could see the exact same glasses sold in the cheap import shops, but the pattern was on the inside, making it harder to clean!

I think they simply copied it looking at pictures of the original, as it was impossible to tell which face the raised parts were on from the pics, but it also didn't occur to anyone along the chain to question whether the raised part should be on the inside or outside!

 

[Mini Me]

A recent example of going to the supplier instead of being ripped off by local retailers. I want to use some confirmat screws on a pineboard storage unit I am going to build. The drill/rebate/countersink is a one piece device but I drew the line at paying near $50 for one so I ordered two different sizes from Alixpress for under $10. The local retailers obviously buy from Alixpress or the suppliers at stupid low prices then retail at stupid mark ups but I am over it.

 

[mino]

A really funny one I came across a few years back was Ikea had a range of drinking glasses that had a geometric raised pattern around the outside of the glass. As usual you could see the exact same glasses sold in the cheap import shops, but the pattern was on the inside, making it harder to clean!

I think they simply copied it looking at pictures of the original, as it was impossible to tell which face the raised parts were on from the pics, but it also didn't occur to anyone along the chain to question whether the raised part should be on the inside or outside!

A mold like the one you describe would be more expensive to make but would use less glass thus reducing the product cost.

More likely the one who "copied" a design was Ikea, it is their business model for most daily items. They do try improving on it by making the insides easy to clean etc.

Most Ikea glassware I have seen are cheap(er) variations on designs I saw 30+ years ago in shops that were made for 50+ years by then. Usually the Ikea design is either a cost-cut/simplified variety and/or a usability-improved take on the "originals". Nothing wrong with that, nothing special either. They are a value play after all.

Frankly, I just find it sad how like two in three Americans/French/British think everyone outside US/FR/UK is an idiot by default and needs to be "civilized" and "shown". Is seems almost like a religion.

This hubris and arrogance is so intrinsic that I am not sure anything short of a WW3-style cataclysmic event or 3+ generations of a continuous decline followed by a "China Qing"-style period can "fix" that. This hubris is what will be (for EU it already is) our downfall. It does get annoying when doing business, but that is not the main thing. It is just sad knowing this inevitably leads to a decline of the whole society.

As the Czech Republic "rejoined" the west economically over the last few decades I had the "privilege" to see the gradual drop in respect to other cultures and the associated exponential growth in arrogance and hubris on a societal level. Sometimes seems like the society is a drug addict feeding on self-praise or something. Watching a local 1980s "communist era" or a 1930s "pre-war era" movie and a 2010s "capitalist era" move this strikes one into the face immediately. It seems like the market economy forces in the entertainment space inevitably have the dopamine-inducing stuff win over which then re-molds the whole society over a century or so. The issue being, we are not living in a Victorian era England where it was the colonies' job to work on "us". Yes, I have noticed this self-praise pondering to the reader already in 1800s British popular literature. Almost as if it was the nature of the beast.

---
What is interesting, the Chinese (and the Japanese) have the same "from above" take on everyone beyond their cultural space. But couple it with going to great pains to separate factual tech/know-how from societal views. They have a strong culture of systematic knowledge expansion where they try to understand and learn from others, including those who they see as culturally "inferior". They seem to know how to limit their hubris when it is practical to do so. IMO a very important skill on a societal level. I guess the Chinese learned their lesson from the foundational mistakes of Ming and are now reaping the benefits. Looking at that as a "weakness"? Big mistake.

 

[luvmytoolz]

A recent example of going to the supplier instead of being ripped off by local retailers. I want to use some confirmat screws on a pineboard storage unit I am going to build. The drill/rebate/countersink is a one piece device but I drew the line at paying near $50 for one so I ordered two different sizes from Alixpress for under $10. The local retailers obviously buy from Alixpress or the suppliers at stupid low prices then retail at stupid mark ups but I am over it.

Yeah we're in a lucky position we can buy from Ali/Temu/Banggood really cheap and quick generally, considering the local sellers just drop ship and whack on 500-1000% margins at a minimum. When I imported my CNC I got ripped off bad by the port authority and broker, probably to the tune of around $2000, but even with that the total still came in at less than 20% for the exact same machine from a local supplier at the time.

 

[Packard]

...
But very simple things may be beyond their capability. 

A case in point:  We ordered 500,000 welded D-rings from a Chinese vendor.  These were low-tech D-rings used to hold down trucking tarpaulins.

We got them in.  They looked great.  Our customer sewed them onto the tarps.  And then the failures started.  The welds were failing.

We tested the D-rings on our tensile tester and we were getting failures at 120 to 150 pounds of static load.  The D-rings had full penetration resistance welds. 

The identical D-ring produced in our factory typically bested 400 pounds before failure.  Our setups had a 390 pound before failure as a minimum.

We could not figure it out.  We sent the samples to a testing laboratory to find out what the type of steel was used.  (High carbon steel is particularly hard to resistance weld.)

The print called for C1008 - C1010 low carbon steel.  This is the “plain vanilla” of steel, and is generally the lowest cost steel available.

I got a phone call from the lab.  They said it was of no identifiable grade of steel and the chemical composition varied.  They said, “It looks like they just melted down some steel scrap and turned it into wire.”

I did ask about the silicon content and that was substantially above acceptable.  Silicon will significantly compromise welds.

My point is, “this-project-is-so-simple-we-don’t-need-western-manufacturing-advice” is what got them in trouble. 
...

This story has nothing to do with capability and everything to do with assumptions in external sourcing. The more external/different the supplier, the more likely such an issue.

It is the most common issue with (starting) outsourcing. The original manufacturer has a lot of "properties" of stuff they make undocumented and production carries itself on "tribe knowledge", acquired some long, long time ago, maybe even a century, but never documented anywhere. Or even just basic "tribe knowledge" in an area which many call "common sense" without realising it is not really such.

Then there is a decision to order this externally (does not have to be overseas) and the procurement team does not specify the (presumed) requirement since it is not written down anywhere and in some cases the last person who would remember where the requirement came from may be in the grave even by then.

In this case, the source of the issue was not the supplier but your procurement team:
- the strength and material requirements were not adequately specified
- they were not checked /before use/
- random validation/test procedures on items passing between companies were not established

As a result, the supplier did the only (economically) correct thing: Asked for an under-specified item, thus they priced and made stuff that met the requirements specified - and only the requirements specified. Probably just that it should be steel and it should have some shape.

It is a mistake to infer a specific supplier capability from a mis-communication on a specific order. Judging a complete supply chain in this way is even more misguided.

Today, outside very-specific items where there is low production volumes and lots of empiric knowledge is required the Chinese manufacturing supply chain is something in front of which the whole German supply chain looks punny. Both on size and on breadth.

There are very few things one cannot get in China today - basically that is chip manufacturing tools in the 7 nm and smaller scale and related tooling and top end jet engines. Those are some of the very few things they do not have mastered. Yet. One may not be happy about that, but the reality is that in most fields the apprentice has surpassed the master by today. May still sell the stuff under his old master brand name, but it is the apprentice developing new versions and improving on them by now.

None of your assumptions are accurate.

1.  We provided a print of the item showing all the dimensions.
2.  On the print we called for “full penetration resistance welds”
3.  On the print we called out the material as , “C1008 - C1010”
4.  On the print we called out “Must hold 300 pounds static, per our testing method described below.  (Probably too involved to describe here — but I can if someone requests the method specified.)

They followed instructions #1 and #2; ignored instruction #3; either failed to test, or failed to test per our instructions as called out in #4.

My take on this is they said, “Hey, it is just a D-ring.  No special wire is really needed.”  Which is more or less true.  As long as it did not contain silicon or was high carbon steel, almost any steel would have been OK.

I stand by my conclusion:  If it is a very simple job and they have misplace confidence because it is simple, there is risk that they will fail badly.

But ask them to make a CNC Milling machine and have your engineers, quality people and procurement people visit the plant regularly, they are capable of turning out good work. 

From us, it was, “Just follow the specifications on the print!”, Which they did not.

 

[mino]

...
None of your assumptions are accurate.

1.  We provided a print of the item showing all the dimensions.
2.  On the print we called for “full penetration resistance welds”
3.  On the print we called out the material as , “C1008 - C1010”
4.  On the print we called out “Must hold 300 pounds static, per our testing method described below.  (Probably too involved to describe here — but I can if someone requests the method specified.)

They followed instructions #1 and #2; ignored instruction #3; either failed to test, or failed to test per our instructions as called out in #4.

My take on this is they said, “Hey, it is just a D-ring.  No special wire is really needed.”  Which is more or less true.  As long as it did not contain silicon or was high carbon steel, almost any steel would have been OK.

I stand by my conclusion:  If it is a very simple job and they have misplace confidence because it is simple, there is risk that they will fail badly.

But ask them to make a CNC Milling machine and have your engineers, quality people and procurement people visit the plant regularly, they are capable of turning out good work. 

From us, it was, “Just follow the specifications on the print!”, Which they did not.

Taken, went by only what was mentioned originally.

My second - and main - point though stands. The story you describe is a textbook miscommunication issue inherent to external sourcing. Has zilch to do with the Chinese versus US business cultures.

I am sure that had the supplier *known* there will be an issue, i.e. understood your actual requirements, they would not have gone with the approach to make the stuff not be to the spec required. Whether it is they thought the "required" is much less than "asked" and so decided to wing it or did not correctly interpret the "asked" does not really matter in that context.

---
I came across the exact same (style of) problems with Western European as well as local suppliers when widely dissimilar technology/cultures were involved. It was enough a company from one (lower volume, more specialist) industry ordering a component from a bigger volume industry supplier within a single city/agglomeration ... Those cases tended to get resolved during the sampling stage, commonly over several iterations. But the original mismatches did happen and most came from genuine (technical) culture differences.
The other side of these is getting an "overbuilt" bid where a supplier presumes a higher standard than is needed. We have a lot of automotive over here, so that situation is not uncommon either.

 

[woodferret]

3.  On the print we called out the material as , “C1008 - C1010”
4.  On the print we called out “Must hold 300 pounds static, per our testing method described below.  (Probably too involved to describe here — but I can if someone requests the method specified.)

They followed instructions #1 and #2; ignored instruction #3; either failed to test, or failed to test per our instructions as called out in #4.

C1008 / C1010 are SAE-AISI standards.  China uses GB standard.  In this case, equivalent is 8 / 08F.  That's what you should have spec'd, likewise you'd be doing DC01 (1.0330) if you're dealing with an EU company.  Your US lab returning unknown is useless because they're only looking at SAE.

As for QA testing, 'our testing method' is vague.  Did you use a kitchen scale?  Did you at least use ASTM?  Why didn't you bother to at least look up the closest corresponding chinese test standards?

I understand there is a barrier to cross standard engineering/sourcing, but you'd have the same issue dealing with any EU, or even individual standards like DIN/poland, etc etc.  This is completely a failure of your sourcing department.

 

[Svar]

C1008 / C1010 are SAE-AISI standards.  China uses GB standard.  In this case, equivalent is 8 / 08F.  That's what you should have spec'd, likewise you'd be doing DC01 (1.0330) if you're dealing with an EU company.  Your US lab returning unknown is useless because they're only looking at SAE.

As for QA testing, 'our testing method' is vague.  Did you use a kitchen scale?  Did you at least use ASTM?  Why didn't you bother to at least look up the closest corresponding chinese test standards?

I understand there is a barrier to cross standard engineering/sourcing, but you'd have the same issue dealing with any EU, or even individual standards like DIN/poland, etc etc.  This is completely a failure of your sourcing department.

Do you really think the Chinese supplier didn't know what C1008 - C1010 is and couldn't find a domestic equivalent? Or can't do a simple strength test? I bet the drawing was in Imperial too, but they managed to get it right, didn't they?
They complied with #1 and 2, because those are visually obvious, and skipped #3 and 4 that can only be revealed by testing.

This reminds me a story of a drill bit manufacturing in China: In a DIY drill bit set, only some (1/4", 3/8", etc.) were properly heat treated, while the rest were just dyed to match the color. The rationale was that an average home owner in US wont use those other sizes often anyway...

The mindset is to cheat if there is a hope to not get caught. It is that simple.

 

[smorgasbord]

This reminds me a story of a drill bit manufacturing in China: In a DIY drill bit set, only some (1/4", 3/8", etc.) were properly heat treated, while the rest were just dyed to match the color. The rationale was that an average home owner in US wont use those other sizes often anyway...
The mindset is to cheat if there is a hope to not get caught. It is that simple.

I totally believe that based on other anecdotal stories I've experienced.

That said, in 1979 I actually interviewed at Black and Decker for a mechanical engineering intern job. That included showing me a cross-section diagram of a drill they made, and asking me to identify the parts. I thought I was going to be clever, and pointed out that the drill appeared to be missing ball or even roller bearings on the main shaft, with just a bushing there. The interviewer then rhetorically asked me if I knew how many hours a typical homeowner would use a drill in his whole lifetime - the answer was something like 10 hours total. So, a design good for 20 hours of usage would be great for them.

I didn't get the job, and mentally decided never to buy Black and Decker tools. Back then DeWalt (acquired in 1960) was a little nothing brand in B&D's stable. In the early 1990's B&D's reputation was so bad they decided to re-invent DeWalt as an upscale brand, apparently pretty successfully, although in my mind it's still tainted.

 

[Packard]

3.  On the print we called out the material as , “C1008 - C1010”
4.  On the print we called out “Must hold 300 pounds static, per our testing method described below.  (Probably too involved to describe here — but I can if someone requests the method specified.)

They followed instructions #1 and #2; ignored instruction #3; either failed to test, or failed to test per our instructions as called out in #4.

C1008 / C1010 are SAE-AISI standards.  China uses GB standard.  In this case, equivalent is 8 / 08F.  That's what you should have spec'd, likewise you'd be doing DC01 (1.0330) if you're dealing with an EU company.  Your US lab returning unknown is useless because they're only looking at SAE.

As for QA testing, 'our testing method' is vague.  Did you use a kitchen scale?  Did you at least use ASTM?  Why didn't you bother to at least look up the closest corresponding chinese test standards?

I understand there is a barrier to cross standard engineering/sourcing, but you'd have the same issue dealing with any EU, or even individual standards like DIN/poland, etc etc.  This is completely a failure of your sourcing department.

We were (“were” because I am retired) an ISO certified company, and all our measuring machines have to be certified each year.  As I recall, our tensile tester would test up to 6,000 points. 

The “method” for tensile testing wire forms only requires that you state how you plan to grip the parts, and what constitutes “failure”.

For our 1” D-ring we required a hook or strap 1” wide for the flat part of the D-ring and a 1/2” diameter for the round side.  Failure was define as when the weld fails or when the part is so distorted that it is not functional. 

All the Chinese vendors have cross references for material specs, and our testing lab had labs world wide, not just in the Americas, but also throughout Europe and including Taiwan. 

We also were listed as an “essential vendor” by military procurement and we had the special designation required to remain open during the pandemic. 

We made components for most of the automobile manufacturers in the USA (which includes many European makes.). If a vendor is not familiar with the material specs, they would be obligated to query on that, and not make substitutions. 

When our lab told us that the chemical analysis showed that the steel did not fit in any known grade of steel, they were including all material standards, not just American. 

Our purchase orders also called out how often and what quantity of parts were required to be tested and the minimum poundage they had to hold. 

The parts looked great—Chinese zinc plating is superior to USA’s version because they are allowed to use chemistry that is banned in the USA (or requires extremely expensive pollution control equipment).

Their chrome plating is also superior to what you can get in the USA as they are allowed to use hexavalent chrome plating and in the USA we can only use tri-valent chrome. 

I agree that the Chinese can produce premium quality products, but the only way to be sure of that is to provide your own supervision.

 

[mino]

...
The mindset is to cheat if there is a hope to not get caught. It is that simple.

Yep. Absolutely. This is what is called "doing business".

As for that story, absolutely believable. Though on the same level as a Walmart rep ordering that type of a bit set with full knowledge.

This is how it is in the OEM world. What a tradesman reseller orders, the contract maker will manufacture. Including stuff they would never dare offer (under their name) on the Chinese market ...

The reason we do not see this from "Western" manufacturers (anymore) is that there are almost no cost-play makers left. Not sure if that is a good thing, to be frank.

 

[woodbutcherbower]

No judgement, no hidden agenda - just speaking as I find;

Hilti SF6H-A22 Gen 1 combi - made at Hilti's plant in Austria. 8 years old, trashed, tortured, my #1 most-used tool with thousands of hours on the clock. Looks like junk. Still works as good as the day I bought it. The gearbox looks like it's come out of a micro-Kenworth or Scania truck.

Hilti SF6H-A22 Gen 2 (= brushless) combi - made at Hilti's plant in China. 2 years old. 4 x failed chucks. 2 x failed trigger switches. 1 x failed speed switch. 2 x failed rotary torque dials. 1 x failed control board. 1 x failed complete motor/armature subassembly - coupled with a looney-tunes 30% purchase price hike, accompanied by a colossal drop in customer service quality (another rant for another day). The gearbox is plastic, and almost all of the drill's TPE overmoulds have fallen apart.

Hilti won't care that they already lost this 5-tool 'little guy' - because their entire business model is focused on their huge, megabucks, corporate rental fleets.

It's late December, it's the end of my tax year, and I need to spend some tax offset money very quickly. Hilti aren't on my 'replacement candidates' list. The top-of-the-heap M18 Milwaukees are looking good - despite the unwelcome consequence of the entire junking of my Hilti A22 battery platform.

You have around three days to convince me otherwise ....

 

[Mini Me]

...
But very simple things may be beyond their capability. 

A case in point:  We ordered 500,000 welded D-rings from a Chinese vendor.  These were low-tech D-rings used to hold down trucking tarpaulins.

We got them in.  They looked great.  Our customer sewed them onto the tarps.  And then the failures started.  The welds were failing.

We tested the D-rings on our tensile tester and we were getting failures at 120 to 150 pounds of static load.  The D-rings had full penetration resistance welds. 

The identical D-ring produced in our factory typically bested 400 pounds before failure.  Our setups had a 390 pound before failure as a minimum.

We could not figure it out.  We sent the samples to a testing laboratory to find out what the type of steel was used.  (High carbon steel is particularly hard to resistance weld.)

The print called for C1008 - C1010 low carbon steel.  This is the “plain vanilla” of steel, and is generally the lowest cost steel available.

I got a phone call from the lab.  They said it was of no identifiable grade of steel and the chemical composition varied.  They said, “It looks like they just melted down some steel scrap and turned it into wire.”

I did ask about the silicon content and that was substantially above acceptable.  Silicon will significantly compromise welds.

My point is, “this-project-is-so-simple-we-don’t-need-western-manufacturing-advice” is what got them in trouble. 
...

This story has nothing to do with capability and everything to do with assumptions in external sourcing. The more external/different the supplier, the more likely such an issue.

It is the most common issue with (starting) outsourcing. The original manufacturer has a lot of "properties" of stuff they make undocumented and production carries itself on "tribe knowledge", acquired some long, long time ago, maybe even a century, but never documented anywhere. Or even just basic "tribe knowledge" in an area which many call "common sense" without realising it is not really such.

Then there is a decision to order this externally (does not have to be overseas) and the procurement team does not specify the (presumed) requirement since it is not written down anywhere and in some cases the last person who would remember where the requirement came from may be in the grave even by then.

In this case, the source of the issue was not the supplier but your procurement team:
- the strength and material requirements were not adequately specified
- they were not checked /before use/
- random validation/test procedures on items passing between companies were not established

As a result, the supplier did the only (economically) correct thing: Asked for an under-specified item, thus they priced and made stuff that met the requirements specified - and only the requirements specified. Probably just that it should be steel and it should have some shape.

It is a mistake to infer a specific supplier capability from a mis-communication on a specific order. Judging a complete supply chain in this way is even more misguided.

Today, outside very-specific items where there is low production volumes and lots of empiric knowledge is required the Chinese manufacturing supply chain is something in front of which the whole German supply chain looks punny. Both on size and on breadth.

There are very few things one cannot get in China today - basically that is chip manufacturing tools in the 7 nm and smaller scale and related tooling and top end jet engines. Those are some of the very few things they do not have mastered. Yet. One may not be happy about that, but the reality is that in most fields the apprentice has surpassed the master by today. May still sell the stuff under his old master brand name, but it is the apprentice developing new versions and improving on them by now.

None of your assumptions are accurate.

1.  We provided a print of the item showing all the dimensions.
2.  On the print we called for “full penetration resistance welds”
3.  On the print we called out the material as , “C1008 - C1010”
4.  On the print we called out “Must hold 300 pounds static, per our testing method described below.  (Probably too involved to describe here — but I can if someone requests the method specified.)

They followed instructions #1 and #2; ignored instruction #3; either failed to test, or failed to test per our instructions as called out in #4.

My take on this is they said, “Hey, it is just a D-ring.  No special wire is really needed.”  Which is more or less true.  As long as it did not contain silicon or was high carbon steel, almost any steel would have been OK.

I stand by my conclusion:  If it is a very simple job and they have misplace confidence because it is simple, there is risk that they will fail badly.

But ask them to make a CNC Milling machine and have your engineers, quality people and procurement people visit the plant regularly, they are capable of turning out good work. 

From us, it was, “Just follow the specifications on the print!”, Which they did not.

You did everything but the one you should have and that is having production oversight during production You might say you should not have to but if you play in their sand pit it is an essential part of the process and yes I do speak from hands on experience here. A mate of mine travels to China before every product shipment to Australia specifically to quality check their work. The automotive industry who partner Chinese companies all have Western QC on site for good reasons as do tool companies for the same reasons.

 

[luvmytoolz]

You did everything but the one you should have and that is having production oversight during production You might say you should not have to but if you play in their sand pit it is an essential part of the process and yes I do speak from hands on experience here. A mate of mine travels to China before every product shipment to Australia specifically to quality check their work. The automotive industry who partner Chinese companies all have Western QC on site for good reasons as do tool companies for the same reasons.

I have to agree with this. It might be because we have been exposed to large amounts of import goods for many years, but if dealing directly with a Chinese company I make sure I spell everything out in simple terms and ensure they understand completely what I'm expecting.

When I imported my CNC machine I had them routinely send me videos and pics of my specific machine as it was being built, not the generic ones they usually send. I also had them run some operations on it so I could see and hear it working. Some aspects I wasn't happy with I pointed out to them which they fixed, which wouldn't have happened otherwise. I did make a bit of a nuisance of myself, but I was acutely aware of how pear shaped it could go if I didn't.

And when dealing with Chinese suppliers, for the most part I don't necessarily believe it's a deliberate choice to deceive on their part, sure there may have been some of that years earlier, but they have a very cavalier style of pragmatism for the outcome that they often genuinely don't understand why it makes a difference if it's yellow or blue, or if other design/build aspects change depending on the day.

In short, you definitely have to spell things out, and then be prepared to hold their hands during the process, and when they've gone through the process for the first time, they'll be well setup for future iterations to run smoother.

 

[Mini Me]

Australians are used to and expect to import as needed which seems to be a foreign idea to those in the US. I used to import from the US (Clearvue) and it would be a rare night I was not on the phone talking to them and making sure everything was going smoothly and it was not unusual for the calls to last for an hour. I later found out that this was a completely foreign way to do things as those in the US never make offshore phone calls whereas to me it is completely normal and only cost a cent a minute so stuff around with emails?

 

[Packard]

...
But very simple things may be beyond their capability. 

A case in point:  We ordered 500,000 welded D-rings from a Chinese vendor.  These were low-tech D-rings used to hold down trucking tarpaulins.

We got them in.  They looked great.  Our customer sewed them onto the tarps.  And then the failures started.  The welds were failing.

We tested the D-rings on our tensile tester and we were getting failures at 120 to 150 pounds of static load.  The D-rings had full penetration resistance welds. 

The identical D-ring produced in our factory typically bested 400 pounds before failure.  Our setups had a 390 pound before failure as a minimum.

We could not figure it out.  We sent the samples to a testing laboratory to find out what the type of steel was used.  (High carbon steel is particularly hard to resistance weld.)

The print called for C1008 - C1010 low carbon steel.  This is the “plain vanilla” of steel, and is generally the lowest cost steel available.

I got a phone call from the lab.  They said it was of no identifiable grade of steel and the chemical composition varied.  They said, “It looks like they just melted down some steel scrap and turned it into wire.”

I did ask about the silicon content and that was substantially above acceptable.  Silicon will significantly compromise welds.

My point is, “this-project-is-so-simple-we-don’t-need-western-manufacturing-advice” is what got them in trouble. 
...

This story has nothing to do with capability and everything to do with assumptions in external sourcing. The more external/different the supplier, the more likely such an issue.

It is the most common issue with (starting) outsourcing. The original manufacturer has a lot of "properties" of stuff they make undocumented and production carries itself on "tribe knowledge", acquired some long, long time ago, maybe even a century, but never documented anywhere. Or even just basic "tribe knowledge" in an area which many call "common sense" without realising it is not really such.

Then there is a decision to order this externally (does not have to be overseas) and the procurement team does not specify the (presumed) requirement since it is not written down anywhere and in some cases the last person who would remember where the requirement came from may be in the grave even by then.

In this case, the source of the issue was not the supplier but your procurement team:
- the strength and material requirements were not adequately specified
- they were not checked /before use/
- random validation/test procedures on items passing between companies were not established

As a result, the supplier did the only (economically) correct thing: Asked for an under-specified item, thus they priced and made stuff that met the requirements specified - and only the requirements specified. Probably just that it should be steel and it should have some shape.

It is a mistake to infer a specific supplier capability from a mis-communication on a specific order. Judging a complete supply chain in this way is even more misguided.

Today, outside very-specific items where there is low production volumes and lots of empiric knowledge is required the Chinese manufacturing supply chain is something in front of which the whole German supply chain looks punny. Both on size and on breadth.

There are very few things one cannot get in China today - basically that is chip manufacturing tools in the 7 nm and smaller scale and related tooling and top end jet engines. Those are some of the very few things they do not have mastered. Yet. One may not be happy about that, but the reality is that in most fields the apprentice has surpassed the master by today. May still sell the stuff under his old master brand name, but it is the apprentice developing new versions and improving on them by now.

None of your assumptions are accurate.

1.  We provided a print of the item showing all the dimensions.
2.  On the print we called for “full penetration resistance welds”
3.  On the print we called out the material as , “C1008 - C1010”
4.  On the print we called out “Must hold 300 pounds static, per our testing method described below.  (Probably too involved to describe here — but I can if someone requests the method specified.)

They followed instructions #1 and #2; ignored instruction #3; either failed to test, or failed to test per our instructions as called out in #4.

My take on this is they said, “Hey, it is just a D-ring.  No special wire is really needed.”  Which is more or less true.  As long as it did not contain silicon or was high carbon steel, almost any steel would have been OK.

I stand by my conclusion:  If it is a very simple job and they have misplace confidence because it is simple, there is risk that they will fail badly.

But ask them to make a CNC Milling machine and have your engineers, quality people and procurement people visit the plant regularly, they are capable of turning out good work. 

From us, it was, “Just follow the specifications on the print!”, Which they did not.

You did everything but the one you should have and that is having production oversight during production You might say you should not have to but if you play in their sand pit it is an essential part of the process and yes I do speak from hands on experience here. A mate of mine travels to China before every product shipment to Australia specifically to quality check their work. The automotive industry who partner Chinese companies all have Western QC on site for good reasons as do tool companies for the same reasons.

Yes, production oversight likely would have prevented this problem. But on an $8,000.00 or $10,000.00 order is not feasible.

When I said “simple”, I should have said, “simple and small”.  If we had dozens of items, all simple, we would have sent a representative.  There are companies that do oversight of manufacturing processes in China for a fee.  Those companies exist because they are necessary.

We learned a lesson and it only cost $10,000.00. 

 

[woodferret]

But you surely do oversight on prospective domestic firms no?  How does that get rolled into the books but international procurement totally lacks it?  Where failure on your part gets rolled into the exceptionalism mindset of it being cultural.  Failure in the domestic firms is just brushed off as business.  That's what's annoying to the rest of us.

 

[Packard]

But you surely do oversight on prospective domestic firms no?  How does that get rolled into the books but international procurement totally lacks it?  Where failure on your part gets rolled into the exceptionalism mindset of it being cultural.  Failure in the domestic firms is just brushed off as business.  That's what's annoying to the rest of us.

Not quite. 

Typically we get a quote.  Get samples.  Submit a sample order. And then proceed.

For example, we placed blanket orders for zinc plating.  We would ship 40,000 pounds at a time.

For a new zinc vendor we would send a skid (about 2,000 pounds) and they would return it plated.  If it looked OK, we would submit a sample order (40,000 pounds).  If the quality and service continued to be acceptable, we would cut a blanket order. 

But we would not do that for a single shipment of say, D-rings for plating.  We would ask for samples (which the Chinese did supply and which we did test) and then we sent the production order.  We shipped by the container.  It really made no difference in total cost if we shipped 20,000 pounds or 80,000 pounds.  We were paying for cubic feet of space.

But the D-rings were such a small quantity that we could not justify sending in two lots.  We approved the samples, and we later sent those sample to the testing lab.  The sample that were approved (by the pull test) were C10080 - C1010 as specified.  They changed the materials for the production.

Manufacturers have to rely on a level of trust as well as a measure of capability.

For example:

If you are having a house built, you might fly from New York to California to examine the foundation.  But the next time you visited, they were putting in the light fixtures and plumbing fixtures and painting the walls and installing the flooring. 

I would excuse you for not looking in while they were framing.  It would be a level of trust that the studs were 14” on center and that none of the trusses were cut to allow for ducting. 

The is a nonsense phrase I used to hear in business:  “Assumptions makes an ass of u and me.”

The world would grind to a halt without assumptions.  The two questions that remain are:

1.  Did you know you were making an assumption?
2.  Was the assumption made using reasonable information?

We knew we were making an assumption.  That is why we insisted on samples.  Was it a reasonable assumption that the production parts would be the same as the sample? Our business experience was that it would be reasonable to expect production to match submitted samples.

I did not write the purchase order, but from my experience with a new vendor there would have been a tag line that said “per your samples submitted 10/12/2018.