It's a rampant problem with manufacturing and production companies these days. It's a race to the bottom: Each underbids the other, then attempts to deliver products within those constraints. Quality suffers as a result, because quality costs. Unfortunately, you cannot choose a slightly more expensive manufacturer and assume you'll get better quality, nor can a manufacturer prove that they will actually provide better quality short of actually producing it. No one gives the higher priced manufacturer a chance, however, because they've likely been burned by higher priced shops that still deliver shit.
It's not an Evil Plot by manufacturers to screw people, though. Each must undercut it's competitors to get business, and the lost revenue then must be made up somewhere.
It's the nature of manufacturing work, then. I've been working in the field (though in different industries within it) for over a decade, and I've watched this happen. It's a gradual process.
This is how it works, how quality is obtained:
1) A production run is set up. Initial product quality is terrible, and is adjusted during the "make ready" process to get a saleable part.
* The time this takes, and the amount of scrap produced in the process, is controlled by the skill of the workers. Obtaining, training, and keeping skilled workers costs money. Lower wages leads to lower worker retention, and training of course is a direct cost. Underskilled workers enormously increase scrap production, even on an otherwise skilled crew: People make mistakes.
* Thus, the definition of "saleable" is very subjective. A product is saleable when while not perfect, it is within established engineering limits. Manufacturers can save costs by broadening those limits - and thus reducing overall product quality.
2) Once a product is "saleable" the workers start saving the product, but continue to work to bring it closer to "spec", to improve the product quality. This too is a direct function of worker skill.
* Note that this, as well as with point 1, happens irregardless of the degree of automation in the manufacturing process: Humans need to tune the machines to run properly, to account for mechanical wear, environmental factors, and any number of other variables.
3) Testing is performed during the production run, of a sample selection of parts. This is usually done at regular, frequent intervals. If a problem arises, workers fix it as quickly as possible. During this time, the production is usually scrapped (unless the part is still deemed "saleable"). As such, worker skill again directly impacts costs - less skilled workers make this process take longer, more scrap is produced (waste materials) and more production time is used (less opportunity for overall production via wasted machine time; increased labour costs for workers; increased overall production time).
4) More testing is performed post-production; either during packaging or during any post-production work such as assembly. This testing typically has wider margins for saleability, because scrapping at this stage generally requires a full restart of the manufacturing process. The setup time/waste is the largest overall cost to the manufacturer, so they are very reluctant to re-produce goods at this stage.
In order to reduce costs, then, manufacturers can choose:
* Reduce wages. This directly impacts worker skill, which reduces production and quality.
* Produce faster. This requires, for a given level of worker skill, laxer quality control specifications. Machines are already running as fast as they can while producing a saleable product (it's senseless to do otherwise), so the only way you can get more products out the door faster is by declaring a part saleable earlier in the makeready process, or by keeping more products during the run that have minor problems.
* Use cheaper materials. Cheaper materials are cheaper for a reason. 'Nuff said.
This constant undercutting, then, results in decreased quality. It's our own fault, though: It's a fact of most business, "Fast, cheap, or quality. Choose two." People have voted with their wallets every single time: Fast and cheap. So, that's what happens.
Unfortunately, then, when you are looking to have a product produced, Fast and Cheap is the assumption. You could in fact discuss with the manufacturer that high quality is extremely important to you, and that time is not critical - your product will take substantially longer to produce, but be of higher quality. However, no one does this. Likewise, you could say that quality is critical, and you need it ASAP, but be prepared to pay a high premium for this. Again, almost no one does this. I've seen both of these happen, and they have worked, but always at the cost mentioned.
And that's our manufacturing lecture for the day.
).
