Brian Kirby Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 postnote - 2011-12-11 7:57 PM Brian Kirby - 2011-12-11 2:36 PM postnote - 2011-12-10 7:41 PM............................Brian had you read the context of the thread header I was asking “Should manufactures be more accountable for quality” I wasn’t asking what the law is but “Should manufactures be more accountable for quality”? It was asking people for their thoughts on the subject not what’s written in law. So, what kind of accountability have you in mind? How might a manufacturer be held to account, if not through legal process?No Brian, it was an open question, it was meant to imply that you air your thoughts. Now stop trying to be a Cleggy and if you have a view then your view would be interesting. Yes your thoughts Brian not those you have read. :-S Well, I aired my thoughts, and it seems you did not find them interesting - apparently because you think they may be based on something I read. My apologies. However they remain my thoughts, in direct response to your question, and I have aired them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest peter Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 Of course the manufacturer should be responsible for sending out goods that are fit for purpose. At the moment the amount they allow the dealer for snagging and PDI is derisory and in no way makes it worthwhile to do an adequate job of inspecting everything. I'm glad that this thread has not degenerated as Mr Uzzel predicted. I don't know what his problem is, maybe his farmer giles are playing up again. (lol) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
postnote Posted December 12, 2011 Author Share Posted December 12, 2011 peter - 2011-12-12 9:26 PM Of course the manufacturer should be responsible for sending out goods that are fit for purpose. At the moment the amount they allow the dealer for snagging and PDI is derisory and in no way makes it worthwhile to do an adequate job of inspecting everything. I'm glad that this thread has not degenerated as Mr Uzzel predicted. I don't know what his problem is, maybe his farmer giles are playing up again. (lol)Well said my good Peter. Looks as though we now know one protagonist who likes to degenerate a thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest peter Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 Can you stop agreeing with me Postnote, you will end up getting me a bad name. (lol) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
postnote Posted December 12, 2011 Author Share Posted December 12, 2011 peter - 2011-12-12 11:41 PM Can you stop agreeing with me Postnote, you will end up getting me a bad name. (lol)You already have, read Mel B's comment in grumpyness :D :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandypowell Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 Hi all, This is brilliant stuff, most of it seems to be on a long winded rant between a couple of guys who use big words to insult each other on a personal bassis for some reason. I am new to all of this so forgive me if i have missed out on something vital - like an answer to the origional question! in the June edition of MMM I wrote that it was my opinion that all suppliers of parts and products that make up the finished motorhome should be registered under BS/ ISO 9001 ISO 9001 sets the standard not only for quality management systems, but also for management systems in general. It helps all kinds of organisations succeed through improved customer satisfaction, staff motivation and continual personal development In short: for manufacturers and distributors, if you put in writing that your method of construction and paper trail follows a certain sequence and, that your final product will be expected to perform to a required standard that you have laid down, then it must meet that standard. Any deviation must be recorded by you as a non conformance and will be open for scrutiny by ISO inspectors. If there are too many complaints and non-conformances listed then a company can loose it's certification. It's a fact that the vehicle builders all have ISO9001 but how many body constructors have it? If not why not. Are the various constructors insisting that the component suppliers have ISO 9001( fridges, cookers lighting, washs rooms etc. in fact every single component in a motorhome) Every finished motorhome leaving the factory should have a unique reference number which would be allocated to that vehicle alone. Every single product fitted would be listed in a file and kept on record. A copy of this file would also be provided to the dealer with the vehicle ( may be a cost implication). The dealer however would in future be able to determine exactly, the unique reference number for any product requiring to be replaced . There would be none of this - well there were three vans supplied at the same time, two had XYZ fitted but the third had XYK fitted and we don't know which one you are refering to but if you send the bit back we will have a look. This surely ( don't call me shirley) must lead to a proper warehousing and stock rotation system, a better standardisation of parts. Fine, constructors may decide each year to change the colour of the cushions, however they should be required to have a backup stock of products available for say 10 years ?, or a least if they don't, under ISO9001and the unique reference number system, they would know what material, colour and shape the cushions were and who supplied them to allow them to order replacements from their suppliers who, also being registered will now know exactly what is being refered to ! It's not rocket science however it does require pressure group action. MMM is governed by the income from advertising so it won't be them, that leaves the clubs. Every year awards are handed out by the clubs for the best in class how about making ISO 9001 registration a compulsory entry qualification? :-( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest peter Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 Very good and relevant post Sandy. I agree that all suppliers be acredited to bs/iso standards of quality / process control. But it does not guarantee that the end product is of good quality, as it's only concerned with the paper trail from component level suppliers to finished product and that you comply with the standards of manufacture and design that you will have documented in your quality manual. So in effect you can make a rubbish product, but it will be well made and every process will be able to be disected in future should anything not be right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandypowell Posted December 14, 2011 Share Posted December 14, 2011 Peter, absolutely true, however it must surely allow inspectors to highlight consistant and repeated problems listed. You are correct in that the build quality may be rubbish however they have built it the way they said they were going to and the paper trail is correct. However the constructor would still have to register complaints against them and list them. As far as I know they must make this compaints - non confromance register available to anyone on request. Any reputable constructor if he wants to maintain that reputation would surely consider there has been a design fault when it comes looking at drawings and layouts for new models. It won't help the poor unfortunates who have splashed out £50K ish on the current model, though it should help improve things in the long term. They need to start somewhere! P.S. I did at one time work for a major domestic appliance manufacturer who had a design fault in a water heater. They knew about it but wouldn't recall all those sold, to replace the dodgy bit. They preferred to replace the whole unit if and when any were returned, on the bassis that some of them wouldn't break down and wouldn't need replacing. the new model however was an improvement and had the design fault ironed out. They were not ISO listed and they produced thousands of heaters that all had the same potential fault - not dangerous just wouldn't work properly, but didn't all break down! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tazdog6007 Posted December 14, 2011 Share Posted December 14, 2011 Some threads do get out of hand ,and some highjacked like my ecowarrior granddaughter on the japonese tsami?but given the state of the economy and future pensions,the motorhome game will decline a great deal in the future.build quality will improve as manufactures and dealers go to the wall(.discover leisure for example)the last twenty years have seen a rush of builders and dealers in the fray and now the party is over.things for those of us still able to indulge in this very expensive leisure method can and must improve.(still waiting to dance on brownhills grave) ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest peter Posted December 14, 2011 Share Posted December 14, 2011 Quote from Tazdog ".(still waiting to dance on brownhills grave)" And who will benefit from that scenario?. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
postnote Posted December 16, 2011 Author Share Posted December 16, 2011 Long and short of it the manufacturers need to get there act together when it comes to a quality build. A prime example is Triumph motorbikes. They have an excellent build quality and as a result sales are up both in UK and worldwide. Quality will always win of shabbiness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.