jem88 Registered Posts: 13 New contributor 🐸
Anyone know what the commercial benefits of not achieving 'best quality' are???



  • mrspnut
    mrspnut Registered Posts: 70 Regular contributor ⭐
    I'm not sure but I would have thought that it would reduce the time taken to produce the item and reduce the wastage. If items do not have to best quality then the pass rate for wastage will be lower leading to less items failing.

    I'm going to go and look it up now - because I should know this.
  • Rinske
    Rinske Registered Posts: 2,453 Beyond epic contributor 🧙‍♂️
    It might also be cheaper to produce.

    Can't really think of anything else at the moment!
  • jem88
    jem88 Registered Posts: 13 New contributor 🐸
    Thats along the lines of what I was thinking!


  • anniem
    anniem Registered Posts: 1,326 Beyond epic contributor 🧙‍♂️
    Only thing I can think of is; lower quality = lower price = more sales!

    Better quality items attract a premium at the expense of volume sales. Perhaps?
    FMAAT - AAT Licensed Member in Practice - Pewsey, Wiltshire
  • timgriff
    timgriff Registered Posts: 55 Regular contributor ⭐
    Also saves on the cost of quality such as appraisal, inspection and control costs. I suppose if you make a million products and you've got to inspect every single one of them to make sure they are perfect it's gonna cost....

    An example of value engineering from the 2006 support booklet on this website is:

    "some japanese disc brakes have parts toleranced to three millimeters, an easy to meet specification. When combined with crude statistical process controls, this assures that less than one in a million parts will fail to fit."

    Another idea that springs to mind is what about cheap headphones? or cheap washing machines? They have cheap parts and are not made to last but target the lower end of the market, ensuring volume sales to price sensitive consumers.
Privacy Policy