Systainer Manufacturing Defects

[Encoded6]

I've bought many systainers over the years and encountered numerous issues . Probably 90% of them are from shipping and handling damage, but occasionally I'll see odd manufacturing defects. Although excluding shipping damage,  I will say MOST of them are impressively pristine.

Now this is a new one for me - check out this new "window feature" on the side of this M137 toolbox. It's not cracked/damaged, the edges are smooth. Really surprising to see how this could have gotten by quality inspection!

 

[GPowers]

Looks like a molding error.  Major slip up in quality control.

 

[Crazyraceguy]

Yeah, stuff like that happens, but it's not supposed to get out into the wild.

 

[Cheese]

That's called a "short shot". I can understand it getting through molding QA as they don't 100% them. What I don't understand is how it got through assembly because that is an assembled product.  [tongue]

 

[Coen]

That's called a "short shot". I can understand it getting through molding QA as they don't 100% them. What I don't understand is how it got through assembly because that is an assembled product.  [tongue]

They 100% check them if you pay for it  [tongue]

 

[mino]

That's called a "short shot". I can understand it getting through molding QA as they don't 100% them. What I don't understand is how it got through assembly because that is an assembled product.  [tongue]

They 100% check them if you pay for it  [tongue]

As if Systainers were not expensive enough ...

In a capitalist business, QA checks for those things which are economical to check - i.e. issues which are likely. Issues which are rare (to the tune of 1 from a hundred thousand rare) are not /excplicitly/ checked as it does not make economic sense to do so.

The issue here was most likely that an automatic/computer check is unable or does not check for this type of an issue and it slipped through a manual/human check. This happens. Humans are no machines, they just miss things.

I would RMA it. No biggie.

 

[peter halle]

Just contact your Festool distributor, send an image and request a replacement.

Less time and effort than posting it here and at least that way you are likely to get it replaced.

Peter

 

[Crazyraceguy]

If it really is just 1 out of several thousand (or more), it is definitely cheaper to just replace it, than to spend more time with inspections.

 

[cpw]

It's also cheaper to just replace it than perfectly inspect, because even though there is that small void the systainer is still functional, particularly with the open top so it isn't like much more dust would get in.

 

[Cheese]

Sorry guys but you missed my whole point.

This item is being ejected off of a mold and being dropped on a conveyer belt, it will travel some distance so that it can cool down. It will not be inspected at that point because this is not the end of the line for it. It will be palletized and placed in inventory or it will be palletized and directly transported to manufacturing if there is a standing work order against it to produce finished product.

When it reaches this assembly stage, the in-house ISO personnel have already written protocols on what to inspect and how to inspect it. The fact that it has passed through many hands at this point and still not been determined to be discrepant product is a serious no-no. This stuff does happen even with ISO oversight but I wouldn't want to be in the middle of the room and being questioned by ISO inspectors as to WTF happened...you only get a few of these before they bring on the hurt. 

And the hurt starts at the President, CFO & CEO level...that's a butt spanking from Heck.

 

[Coen]

This item is being ejected off of a mold and being dropped on a conveyer belt, it will travel some distance so that it can cool down. It will not be inspected at that point because this is not the end of the line for it.

The last sentence doesn't make sense. Inspecting parts before they go to (sub) assembly is done with many products. It also saves in shipping volume.

 

[Cheese]

The last sentence doesn't make sense. Inspecting parts before they go to (sub) assembly is done with many products. It also saves in shipping volume.

The only reason to inspect the parts as they come off of the mold is to achieve a "comfortable cycle", i.e. you don't want to force the process, you want to just mold the item and have it be within tolerances. All the process parameters have been previously recorded and that's a starting point but indoor temperature, humidity and resin lot can/will affect the actual machine settings for the day.

A drawing is red-lined and the "critical dimensions" are circled. The press operator checks the parts for visual issues while the QA inspector checks the "critical dimensions", so between the two of them, after some amount of time, they finalize the process parameters and sign off on the procedure. After that maybe the press operator glances at a molded item every 15-20 minutes looking for knit lines or surface blush but that's about it.

The difference here with this item is it's not a stand alone part ready to sell. It's only a salable item after it has had some additional items added to it or some 2nd operations performed on it. So, other people will necessarily have to handle it and look at it thus reducing the potential higher inspection costs of being inspected twice.

 

[Coen]

Yes, but that all depends on the whole production process. I've visited a nearby molding business and some parts they sold were checked between ejection and packaging. And those were things like parts of housings.

 

[mino]

Sorry guys but you missed my whole point.

This item is being ejected off of a mold and being dropped on a conveyer belt, it will travel some distance so that it can cool down. It will not be inspected at that point because this is not the end of the line for it. It will be palletized and placed in inventory or it will be palletized and directly transported to manufacturing if there is a standing work order against it to produce finished product.

When it reaches this assembly stage, the in-house ISO personnel have already written protocols on what to inspect and how to inspect it. The fact that it has passed through many hands at this point and still not been determined to be discrepant product is a serious no-no. This stuff does happen even with ISO oversight but I wouldn't want to be in the middle of the room and being questioned by ISO inspectors as to WTF happened...you only get a few of these before they bring on the hurt. 

And the hurt starts at the President, CFO & CEO level...that's a butt spanking from Heck.

Not sure if you ever did ISO 9000 series audits, or established processes for compliance. I did.

And one thing that permeates this is that it is about "Quality Control". Not about "Quality" itself. I.e. is is about making sure you are producing what you think you are producing. Including the assurance you are producing junk - if you wish so ... So the purpose is not to avoid junk, it is to be able to decide how much junk you will be producing - basically it allows you to "tune your junk rate".

In 99.9% cases, you actually do not shoot for a "junk rate" of zero. That would be cost-prohibitive. Just look at the NASA costs versus Musk costs. The NASA guys shoot for JR=0 while the second guys for JR=10%-ish. Guess which worked out better on the overall cost scale ..

What all those quality control processes provide is some fancy "knobs" that allow you to tune your "junk rate".  In practice, it is then used to reduce the overall quality as without it you usually need to build in a bigger "reserve" for manuf. errorrs.
Now, from my experience of owning a couple dozen disparate systainers, I would dare to say that TANOS has these knobs pretty tight as it is.

And yes, for some pieces the acceptable "junk rate" is precisely zero - safety related issues, medical equipment etc. But a non-functional error on a toolbox (!) is not one of those things.

This thread of a prime case of a storm in a teacup with the meteorological community pontificating on the mystery of how that comulonimbus got in that cup in the first place.

[cool]

 

[Ron B]

I agree with the ISO 9000 comment.  ISO 9000 certified means you have your procedure documented to avoid mistakes-it does not mean you will avoid mistakes.  So as long as you are following procedures, (i.e. checking torque wrench every two hours) and sign off on the procedure, you pass the audit.    I mentioned torque wrench because we had this happened at the manufacturer where I worked.  A drive shaft knuckle on a semi-truck was not tightened correctly.  It separated going down the highway and was flopping wildly under the truck, and took the floor of the sleeper out (and ripped out the air lines so no brakes).  Heads rolled, people were fired, rightly so.  The systainer void is a disappointment, but I cannot imagine being that trucker and having his truck suddenly torn apart as he drove down the highway. 

 

[Cheese]

1. Not sure if you ever did ISO 9000 series audits, or established processes for compliance. I did.

2. And one thing that permeates this is that it is about "Quality Control". Not about "Quality" itself. I.e. is is about making sure you are producing what you think you are producing. Including the assurance you are producing junk - if you wish so ... So the purpose is not to avoid junk, it is to be able to decide how much junk you will be producing - basically it allows you to "tune your junk rate".

1. Yes, I was a project engineer at the time, so not only were my projects audited for ISO compliance, but I was also responsible for drafting ISO certification documents across several company product lines to maintain a uniform look for the management of overall corporate quality. This was a big deal 20 years ago...don't know where it falls in our present world.

Along with those responsibilities...or probably because of those responsibilities, I was also designated as being one of the main conduits to interface with the ISO auditors...basically a friendly face for the Brits.  [smile]

2. The more interesting point you bring up is the production of junk. You're absolutely correct that ISO doesn't dictate quality standards, but rather just enforces, whatever quality standards you put out there in the first place. This may at first look like a cop-out on quality but in reality ISO is really saying, choose your own poison. We're not here to tell you what to do but to only make sure you do what you say you are doing.

And that's good, what manufacturing firm in the world would commit to producing discrepant parts at the rate of 95% and still be in business within the next year. So again, choose your poison.

Overall, I think ISO has had a positive influence on manufactured goods despite the increased prices it has necessitated. The ISO philosophy rather reminds me of the Miele slogan "Immer Besser."

 

[Coen]

Those ISO audits to me... seem more like enforcing outsourceability of manufacturing...

 

[Crazyraceguy]

It just comes down to a minor visual defect, that has no bearing on performance. Some customers might not even care, figuring that something is going to happen to it anyway. So, some companies would let it go and replace it if they get called-out on it.
Some of this has to do with nothing more than volume. As stated, shooting for perfect is expensive and you have to pick your battles.

 

[Coen]

The labor for inspection is untaxed if you let the private customer do it  [tongue]

 

[peter halle]

Boy my eyes hurt after reading this thread more than looking at that image.  But at the end of the day - Festool wouldn't have wanted that product delivered to the customer and the rectification can be had by contacting Festool and letting them know and have them replace that item.

Now the conversation can go on and toss the thoughts about the unfortunate opportunity cost burden now on the purchaser letting Festool know directly about the issue.

Sorry to not go further but I have togo and trim my dogs' toenails.

Peter