Address ‘Root Causes,’ Leverage Data to Improve Quality, Says QIMA Exec
Quality assurance processes generate data, but often companies are not leveraging this information to its full potential, according to QIMA’s senior business development manager David Simonson.
In a fireside chat with Lauren Parker, director, SJ Studio, at Sourcing Journal’s Fall Summit on Nov. 2, Simonson warned against companies becoming so “distracted” by dealing with non-complying products or defects, at the cost of proactivity and the resources to actually analyze data. “We’re being reactive all the time, dealing with other issues and putting out fires that are wasting time, effort and money,” he said. “That doesn’t give you time to really invest in that data for continuous improvement initiatives.”
More from Sourcing Journal
Reducing defects starts with design, and Simonson pointed out the benefit of developing “repeatable and reproducible products” that have a standard performance outcome. Companies should also address the “root causes” of issues upstream to limit repeat issues. For instance, if a garment has defects, a company could go back to the mill level to prevent problems downstream.
To execute on this, companies need data they can trust from reliable partners, such as key performance indicators like colorfastness. Once a brand has this information, Simonson noted it must also take a “holistic view” on that data, using it “to gain more market share and be more profitable for the win-win that the customer is more happy with your product as well.”
Since it is a third-party inspection firm, QIMA is able to share benchmarking data with companies so they can see where they stand against their peers and work toward closing any gaps.
Simonson, who previously worked at a Tier 1 car manufacturer, noted that the automotive industry took a data-driven approach to quality out of necessity, since companies wanted to ensure that vehicles lasted at least 100,000 miles. “To survive, that dinosaur had to move forward,” he said.
In addition to data challenges, Simonson has seen fashion companies struggle to hold suppliers responsible for achieving desired outcomes. Specifically, there are challenges defining a 4.0 or 4.5 rating. “They may look at the data and alter the expectation of the product to meet the vendor’s capability rather than holding their feet to the fire,” he said. “Because at a certain price point, you have to maintain those numbers and the standards, and… keeping the bar up there without slipping and letting it go is a real challenge.”
Keeping up with the growing regulatory demands as well as quality expectations means more testing and inspections, and that comes with a cost, which “chomps away at the fiscal side of your product,” per Simonson. He suggested a tiered approach to inspections that centers on relative risk. For reliable suppliers, companies could skip some testing, leaving more resources for addressing riskier vendors. “Shift that spend so that you’re not doing the same thing here, compounding, spending more here,” he said. “Move it upward to balance out the fiscal side, the responsibility for all due diligence all across the board.”
Similarly to quality, sustainability is also about measurement and “continuous improvement,” noted Simonson. He suggested that companies should “start somewhere” if they haven’t already. “It’s a matter of working with a collaborative third-party, sitting down with your organization, and really talking to them about what [sustainability] means to you, and then taking the toolbox that’s out there, and assessing where you’re at to be where you need to go,” he said. “Because sustainability is the annual report, now that everybody’s looking at it.”
