Nuclear Grade Quality for all: Lessons learned from Porsche

One of the most heartbreaking supplier incidents I had working in supplier quality for nuclear weapons components was with a machine shop that was truly a world class operation. I was assigned to pilot a new metrics improvement program with them after a significant product non-conformance pushed their metrics below a certain threshold. As I dug into the data I found they had the lowest incidence of workmanship non-conformances across our supply base. This was significant in that this was one of our more difficult to achieve requirements; if they could do this well, they should be able to do almost anything well.

What made it more heartbreaking was that their metrics issue was driven by a single non-conformance on an edge break, a relatively simple feature. They were automating a measurement that our inspectors did fully manually, and they discovered the hard way that this method still needed some tweaking to correlate perfectly.

When I visited them, they were understandably frustrated. With the exception of this incident, their metrics were nearly perfect. They had perfect on-time delivery, which I learned had a lot to do with their double redundant processes and top tier implementation of risk management, both organizationally and operationally. The only reason a single order was able to push their metrics below this threshold was because their volume was low, both compared to their competitors, and to their own expectations. They were investing quite a bit to maintain our supplier qualification standards, and really weren't getting enough business to offset these costs.

I dug deeper into workmanship because in addition to being a common and significant indicator of overall process quality, it was a topic that their quality manager brought up to me on several occasions; it was certainly something he was concerned with. What I found on-site was revealing: They were actually investing too much effort into eliminating machining marks. The parts I looked at had a near mirror finish. I hadn't noticed this before because they had never received a non-conformance for surface finish, and very rarely received one for anything related to workmanship. In this case it was the lack of data that should have been telling.

This had a twofold effect on cost: Not only were the finishing passes required to achieve this finish very expensive in terms of tooling and machine time, but these nearly polished surfaces made any other visual defect much more noticeable. The biggest criticism of our workmanship spec was that it was subjective. It should go without saying that when it comes to visual defects, "more noticeable" and "subjective" are a very expensive combination.

To their credit, the real problem here was that our requirement was so subjective, and while we discussed interpretations of it, they had good suggestions on how to make it more objective and measurable. If there was one thing I wish I had more time to accomplish in that role, it would have been improving that.

We clarified our true expectations on machining marks, and advised they shoot for something closer to the maximum roughness on the drawing. They weren't getting scored on surface finish, they just had to meet the print. This would cut machining costs while also reducing the overall workmanship burden, thereby making them more competitive on price, so they could increase their volume, so that they were not only more profitable, but couldn't have their monthly metrics tanked by a single order. Not long after, their volume picked up, and years later they remained a successful supplier.

Lessons Learned from Porsche

Porsche 356, the first ever production model Porsche. Attribution: CC BY-SA 2.0 de, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=2387076

Porsche's first production car, the 356, has been called a "Volkswagen Beetle on Steroids." This is an accurate comparison, and the family resemblance is somewhat obvious. It is also not surprising, as the original Beetle had significant influence by Ferdinand Porsche. The Beetle still holds the title of the best-selling car of a single platform in history, with production of 21.5 million units spanning from 1938-2003. It is not unreasonable to say that, for its time and intended purpose, it was vehicular perfection.

The economic situation in Germany after WWII posed severe challenges in starting a sports car company, so using the Beetle as a basis made a lot of sense; it may have been the only way Porsche could have gone into production, particularly at scale.

The biggest key to the success of the 356, however, was that despite its roots and obvious similarities, it was quite clearly more than a hopped-up Beetle. The video linked above gives a really great 16 minute history of the 356, but some highlights are that this comparatively humble sports car was considered the best handling production car of its time and even won its class in LeMans.

What is more significant is how it was able to evolve. The early models were competitive in price with the ubiquitous British roadster, while also being much more reliable and better engineered. Later models became much more expensive, however they were quoted by Car and Driver as "a different automobile and a more costly one, but it is an incomparable car in the literal sense; there's nothing like it at any price."

Making Nuclear Grade Quality Competitive

The real magic of the Porsche 356 was that it was simple where it worked to be simple. It won its class in LeMans through its thoughtful deviations from the Beetle, while also being priced competitively and having best in class reliability. It was a true engineering marvel.

As Big W is refining our offerings, this is how we aspire to bring nuclear grade quality to more than just the nuclear security enterprise. Every shop that is able to stay competitive clearly has at least a few things they do really well. When it comes to Quality Management System (QMS) implementations, we strive to identify these things, and rather than re-invent the wheel or try to force your processes into a box designed for someone else, we meet you where you are and help you build tools that leverage what is already working for you.

We have a lot of exciting things in the works. While these will be revealed in the coming weeks and months, I first wanted to share my philosophy on how these offerings should be built. We use automation and clearly defined processes to reduce our overhead, and use the same tools we recommend to manage our own processes. By doing this, we aim to give you Porsche performance on a Volkswagen budget.