When compliance to design and quality standards for outsourced materials comes into question.
Think
it’s tough in the electronics industry? Just be glad you’re not in the
toy business, specifically Mattel Inc. Mattel may not seem like a
poster child for what could happen within our “high-tech” electronics
industry as they derive the lions share of their profit from the ever
“low-tech” Barbie, but we all should be paying close attention to both
what has happened to a couple of Mattel’s “low-tech” products and how
they handle the resulting brouhaha.
As I think
everyone knows, like most companies in the electronics industry, some
of the toys that Mattel creates and markets are manufactured overseas,
specifically in China. Over the summer, it was discovered that some of
these toys have paint that contains enough lead to make them
potentially harmful to young children. When I heard the much
sensationalized reports, the first thing that came to mind was that we,
in the electronics industry, are not the only ones who face RoHS-like
environmentally driven product liability problems.
In
the early 1970s I had a part-time job in a paint store. The big issue
at that time was removing lead from paint, which just about every known
company had accomplished at the expense of paint coverage and trueness
of colors. I had thought that all lead was removed from not just paint
but inks and dies decades ago; so such a revelation that any modern
manufacturing company could still be using paint containing lead seemed
far fetched. Knowing how cost-conscious companies in manufacturing
savvy China are, all I could imagine was that some clever engineer had
found a way to make paint go a little bit farther and, therefore, save
some money.
The reality is we will never know why
paint with a high lead content was used on the Mattel toys, but I will
bet a dollar to donuts that, with all the planning and contingencies a
large, world-class company like Mattel goes through when having a
product manufactured, no one ever imagined that something as dumb as
the use of paint with lead in it would be used on toys nor the
resulting safety, financial and public relations nightmare that would
result.
This shifted my thoughts to the second aspect
of this story: knowing what you are receiving versus what you think you
have purchased. Our industry has, for years, worked diligently to
develop and utilize standards so that product quality could be assured
for all within the supply chain. Good, well thought out standards
protect the manufacturer as well as the customer. Historically, our
industry has been made up of companies who took quality more seriously
than costs and has taken to heart providing a product that, companies
believed, was fabricated to the industry’s high standards. In recent
years, the IPC, the predominant standards organization for our
industry, has taken considerable heat for having promoted standards to
emerging manufacturing markets in Asia, most particularly China. That
being said, everyone has assumed that each company, regardless of
global location, engaged in our industry would by desire or market
necessity have the integrity to build to the certified product
standard. Obviously, in the Mattel situation, it appears that this may
not have been the case, and making such an assumption may require some
reexamination.
On this point, I started thinking – or
more accurately worrying – about all the “what ifs”… What if the solder
mask contains lead like the paint used on Mattel’s toys?; what if the
laminate used has substandard resin?; what if any of the documentation
is fudged so product appears to have met specifications?. My “what-if”
list kept getting longer and longer, and some of the “what ifs” seemed
pretty far-fetched. But then again, I bet that if someone at Mattel had
said “What if they use paint with lead in it?” everyone would have said
that, too, seemed pretty far-fetched.
One of the
lessons from the Mattel fiasco is that you can’t assume anything. Due
diligence is required especially when you outsource any or all of your
manufacturing processes. No detail is too small, and continual review
of the product, processes and people involved in producing your product
is essential. A few years ago most North American companies were
skeptical of partnering, brokering or joint venturing with any foreign
company. While in recent years that skepticism has pretty much
vanished, we all still need to keep a watchful eye on our partner,
regardless of where the company is located, to ensure that we receive
the product or service per the specifications expected. Dumb stuff can
and will happen. Even the most basic products – I could argue probably
most often the most basic products – cannot be taken for granted.
Quality standards need to be checked, and material and workmanship need
to be evaluated; assumptions cannot replace verification.
So
why should we in electronics pay close attention to Mattel? Well, for
two fundamental reasons. First, stuff happens. And the farther away you
are from where your product is manufactured, the more you need to make
sure you know exactly what you are getting. Second, environmental risk
is prevalent everywhere. You don’t have to be in the electronics
industry to be impacted by the lead-free challenge. As Mattel works its
way through these issues, we should pay attention to what it does. It
may provide a good lession for us to follow. PCD&F
Peter Bigelow is president and CEO of IMI (imipcb.com). He can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..
