Welcome to Motorhomefacts, we are a thriving motorhome community (Largest in Europe). Why Not JOIN NOW and get instant access to more of the website. It costs nothing to join and only takes a few minutes. We have 200,000 different people visiting our site monthly and this amount of motorhomers in one place guarantees a fast response to any questions you may have. We also have unique facilities not found elsewhere such as our Online Logbook, stopover tracker, Motorhome directory with Ebay type feedback and the largest repository of motorhome campsites reviews found anywhere
[/quote]They can do that now!Peter.[/quote]
So perhaps you need to tell people ?
I am aware that when all else fails - dealer- people can get in touch via forum but remained unaware people could get parts etc via the factory direct
terry
edit I must type faster 2 reply s while thinking / typing
Your comments... Sales Director and Autocruise sales manager away in a motorhome. Truthfully, what good is that, other then for them, so they can spurt to someone they have used one. Were they 2010 or 2011 prototypes, highly likely they were not. Were they current models or press fleet- highly likely.. yes.
When will you grasp that to beat your foreign competition you have to be better then them on quality of design and build. That is done in the proto type testing, which should be done fully and correctly.
You quote you have been in the industry for 40 years (well done). But when will you state that you are testing products you are building for 2012 production, probably through 2011 with six weeks prior to a product launch.
Thats the issue. The parts and assemblies and not fully tested. Because you have done it for 40 years this way and are still here may make you feel that you are doing it right. But in my opinion, if you bashed your competition because you have a proven and tested product that everyone trusts and wants to buy, you will naturally beat you competitors and grow from strength to strength.
But it appears you fall into the same trap that we must have this model because that competitor is selling some, before it has been fully tested. Which results in dissatisfied customers who may be lost to the brand. Better to have slow growth and retained customers with satisfied confidence in the product and a belief in the brand that it is quality.
In the defence of manufacturers - I run a manufacturing business that is quite well known in it's field. We must get 2-3 calls a week from members of the public demanding to know why we haven't made/supplied/delivered their goods - despite the fact that they are not our customer. We always find that 'their' goods haven't actually been ordered by the company they are actually dealing with - either because they are waiting to have a sufficient orderbook to avoid paying carriage, cashflow, they're too busy (not getting that one much at the moment) or surprise, surprise - they forgot.
I agree with Maddies point about tried & tested - but all manufacturers who are reliant on sourced components must have to have a % figure for breakdowns - as a rule of thumb we try & overstock by twice this amount, and obviously we hope that our internal QC procedures will catch them. We run at a (reported) 0.012 internal error & 0.0026 external error. We have on average 20-30 components per item. How many do you have Peter?
Kelcat- I can answer that from a factory visit-one or two of some, none of a lot. Please correct me if I am wrong. Plus a lot on order due to be made and awaiting delivery? and subsequently onto despatch to the dealer/customer.
Stock levels are not the point I'm making.
If Swift are putting an item together with say 100 components and have a fault on every third van (& I'm not for a second saying they do - I've no idea what their figures are but I get a feeling from reading this site it's lower than that) - this still represents are fractionally small 'fail' rate that any manufacturing expert would find an acceptable cost.
The more interesting cost analysis would be to know the criteria on which components are de-selected. i.e. if a part is only 50p & it fails the cost to Swift could be said to be 50p as it is the dealer who stands the almost definitely higher labour costs - or do Swift pay dealers for warranty work the same as in the car trade? If so there must come a point where poor quality parts are a false economy. Apart from Fiat based issues I really don't seem to get a feel from MHF that this is a case of the same errors / parts occurring (apart from the ever present PDI issue).
Material costs are just one part of the overall costs associated with poor quality
As well as the labour costs of rectification there is the cost of providing a Customer Care organisation and the even harder to measure - Loss of Business, i.e those folks who wont buy the product again or recommend it to friends.
In addition the eventual recognition that a problem needs rectifying at the source can mean very expensive re-design and possible recalls. FIAT Judder as an example.
I guess I may be preaching to the converted but Quality Control isn't really about stopping faulty products being shipped. Rather there should be a Quality Assurance Process that catches potential faults and failures throughout the whole product life cycle, from Specification through to Development through to Manufacture through to Handoff and possibly beyond.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You cannot download files in this forum
All times are GMT + 1 Hour Page 5 of 5Goto page Previous1, 2, 3, 4, 5
UK
So perhaps you need to tell people ? 
