Dysartes wrote:
Gymnogyps wrote:No, the problems were bubbles, incompletely filled molds, and flat areas so thin I could see through them. These are flaws, and a sign of an out of control manufacturing process. This was over a span of time, but having worked in both QA and QC (there IS a difference) in other industries, it was clear to me that this was not going to get better.
GW had decided that those flaws were acceptable, which is why they were sold in the first place and continued to be sold.
I'm genuinely curious, Gymnogyps - how would you sum up the differences between QA and QC? From the outside, they sound like very similar roles.
Quark hit it pretty good, but here is a nice summary from wikipedia, emphasis mine (I know, bad reference, but the language is decent):
"Quality control
emphasizes testing of products to uncover defects and reporting to management who make the decision to allow or deny product release, whereas quality assurance attempts to improve and stabilize production (and associated processes) to
avoid, or at least minimize, issues which led to the defect(s) in the first place."
Even more simplified... QC is much more black and white, asking does this product pass or not. QA is more how do we monitor for our failures, and ensure we meet our acceptable standard for rate of failure... and if we don't meet it, why? What happened?
Keep in mind, absolutely zero defects is impossible. Getting to an acceptable rate of failure, for the intended use of the product, and at an acceptable cost, is the goal. Absolute perfection may be impossible, but if the customer is willing to pay and the product requires it, close enough to no failures
can be done, but we're talking things like aseptically filled sterile injectable drugs (where one failure, i.e. non sterile unit, can kill or seriously injure someone), or things like the critical parts for airplanes or nuclear submarines. Extreme examples, but these are the things where failure must be minimized to the maximum extent possible.
I don't expect zero defects from a miniature. But 100% defect rate, at least to me, as the customer, sends a clear message that my needs are not being met. That this did not improve over a long span of time tells me that the process is what it is. Keep in mind, when I say the process is "out of control", I'm referring to lack of control of the process, and its failure to deliver an acceptable product. That's all.
So tying it all together, absolute perfection is impossible, less flaws come at higher cost. There is something inherently broken about the product to me, as a customer, when I'm paying more but am getting more defects.
Edit - was tired last night, forgot a critical point.
QC can only analyze for the failures that are
known to be failures. There must be criteria. Similarly, QA must ensure the process is meeting the
standards for the intended use. You know what happens when a QC guy or gal starts asking about stuff not on the specification for inspection? Or QA investigates a non-failure? They get told to STFU and get back in the lab or go read a procedure something.
There are ZERO QA/QC issues with finecast if
GW management has mandated the acceptable quality standard is as it is. That the problems have not gone away, issues have not been acknowledged, and that it was released in the state it was, makes it pretty clear that management has made this decision.
You know what quality criteria work for the finecast minis I've received? Hold it 3 feet away, does it look like the mini its supposed to? Yes. PASS! Take 2 seconds to glance at the mini on sprue, does it look vaguely like all the parts are there? Yes. PASS! The problems I have actually had are things like my Vargulf missing fur and spikes on the top, which I only noticed when I put it together... only when two pieces were right next to each other could you see the problem.
Summing up again... QC analyzes based on criteria established ultimately by management. If nothing fails then the process is working the way it is supposed to, and QA has no investigation / corrective actions to do. You don't "improve" a process if its making acceptable product! It isn't QA/QC failure if management has determined the flaws we see are acceptable.
The Hand of Blood
