While having lunch with a friend recently, we got into a conversation that is pretty frequent in China. Attention to detail, or the lack there of.

It is something that for many westerners, we value highly. It could be as simple as a 5 year old coloring within the lines, to an analyst who is known for amazing Excel skills, to a technician making sure a measurement is exact.

With respect to this conversation though, we were discussing the recent fitout of her apartment and the fact that her husband was miffed at the poor attention to detail that the workers had. That he was constantly having to tell them how something should look, or the “feel” he wanted… and that they still could not get it right.

Where the discussion took a “deep” turn was when she (Chinese) was recalling how she needed to explain to her husband (foreigner) that there was no possible way that they would get this right because they had no context from which to understand what he wanted.

After all, many of the workers were from poorer areas of China, and this had an impact. Their houses may have been poorly built, with the main focus being function… not form… At the same time, instead of using drywall, paint and caulk, their materials may have historically been brick and mortar.

and if those weren’t good enough reasons, she suggested that he remember that they had been sleeping in that apartment for 3 months and she could not remember if they had ever changed their outfit. Point being, that perhaps they were just trying to finish the job so they could (1) get to the next one or (2) get home.

Now, I am not sure that this example can/ should have a larger application (like in the pharmaceutical lab), but in my mind this represents an interesting anecdote/ story that should be shared.

More often than not, sweeping statements about quality are made with little basis of understanding why the quality gap persists, and I would like to think that stories like this offer an opportunity for me/ we/ us to take a step back and break down a situation into its parts and learn.

Anyone else have an interesting annecdote that went a few steps beyond the normal rant?

Last summer, one of my primary positions when it came to the product safety scandal was that importers had to ensure their supply lines were just as compliant in China as they were in the U.S.

It is a simple.. SIMPLE.. risk assessment really that some (maybe many) failed to fully understand, and as we all saw in the media over and over again, there were firms whose inability to follow simple risk assessments and make investments in quality assurance got caught.

Toxic tanks, lead paint Barbies, killer toothpaste… and so on… and while China as a country took the initial volley of blame, I continually pressed the point that these quality problems were a commercial issue and that firms needed to stop treating outsourcing like a trip through the local McDonald’s Drive-thru

Product quality, quality control, and risk assessment are not abstract concepts, and spending money on ensuring the strength in them is not an expense. It is an INVESTMENT.

Cleaning up the problem is the expense, and if the fact that Mattel had to spend millions to recall defective toys didn’t convince executives that the brands would ultimately pay for their failure to understand risk, perhaps this article (h/t Consumerist) will Charges Filed Against Importers Of Toxic Toothpaste

the key phrase (emphasis is mine) in the article is:

The companies are liable for distributing the tainted product even if they had no direct knowledge of the risk because they were negligent in not ensuring the toothpaste was safe, Supervising Deputy City Attorney Jerry Baik said

no sir.. actually buy no having any direct control of the process I thought it was perfectly safe.. Look Ma.  NO HANDS!

Focusing on the difficulties of transparency within the supply chain, Melissa Brown of Association for Responsible and Sustainable Investment in Asia (ASRiA) sat down for an interview covering a lot of the angles surrounding the integrity of supply chains in China.

I highly suggest taking your lunch break to watch the 15 minute clip, and then think about some areas you feel may be at risk within your supply chain. I have listed the 7 questions she was asked along with a few bullets on what she said… and added a few thoughts of my own in italics

Questions asked during this clip are:

1) How easy is it to get details about Asian companies?
- Need to have a sense about what is know and how to compare
- Need to use different tools - policies are not set the same way, available resources can be limited

Getting information about Chinese firms is not terribly difficulty, it is about time and the amount of money one is willing to spend. One can approach firms from different angles, as a buyer, as a supplier, through a friend, through Alibaba.. you can even stake a factory out for a week. But it all comes down to how much time you want to spend, and the budget you are willing to allocate

Continue reading »

For those who read Last week, you may have noticed that I made a quick reference some Dr. Tea gave to the boys inside the beltway… well, here are a few more details on Dr. Tea as well as her testimony.

So first… Dr. Tea (Professor Mary Teagarden), is a close friend of mine and of many Thunderbirds is one of those old China hands who have spent the better part of the last 30 years working with China. She lived in Beijing when you still had to ride your bike across town to schedule international phone calls, she has advised dozens of companies entering China, she has worked with various government entities, and that is why she was asked to The Hill to give her thoughts on the recent product recalls.

Next.. the hearings Committee Questions Consumer Product Safety Commission, Mattel on Lead-Tainted Products and Toy Recalls

The session was split into two panels, and while toys were the primary focus, more important issues were discussed (support for agencies, legislation needed, etc). The participants included:

Panel 1 included:
Dana Best, M.D., M.P.H. - American Academy of Pediatrics (PDF testimony here)
Olivia D. Farrow, Esq., R.S. -Assistant Commissioner,Division of Environmental Health Baltimore City Health Department (PDF testimony here)
Michael Green - Executive Director, Center for Environmental Health (PDF testimony here)
Lori Wallach - Director, Global Trade Watch (PDF testimony here)
Mary Teagarden - Professor of Global Strategy, Thunderbird School of Global Management (PDF testimony here)

Continue reading »

Perhaps by continuing to post on product failures, I am flogging a dead horse, but once again I have found another report that should be highlighted

Spoiled, Keeping Tainted Food Off America’s Tables (PDF Here) is written by Jessica Milano for the Progressive Policy Institute. She actually works for Competition Policy Associates (COMPASS)

Written from the perspective of an American looking for ways to protect consumers from imported products, Milano focuses primarily on the government agency infrastructure in her report and offers up the following 5 “simple ideas to improve food safety”

1. Improve and simplify the regulatory process by creating a single food inspection agency.
2. Double resources for food safety by cutting waste.
3. Shift to a risk-based allocation of resources.
4. Create a stronger recall authority.
5. Use the Container Security Initiative (CSI) program to strengthen pointof-entry food inspections.

In coming to these conclusions, she lays out some very compeling evidence and arguments:

Continue reading »

The last 3 months have been a nightmare for anyone with a Made in China sticker on their goods, and for China as a whole.

Through this process, one of the things I keep coming back to is “what level of product failure is acceptable”. For consumers, the first response is none. No product failures should be accepted. that 1 is too many…. but is that reasonable? Is it economical?

or have consumers gone a bit overboard?

In debating this, there are three examples that have particularly bothered me, or at least have led me to ask this question:

1) FTS/ Hongce Tires - One of the first cases to hit the press, this story received a lot of attentention early on.

Through press accounts, of the 450,000 or so tires imported, 2 tires failed. a failure rate of .0004%.

2) Mattel - Probably the most covered of all the recalls, Mattel has announced 3 recalls this year of more than 20 million toys across multiple categories. 20 million toys is a lot of toys, and according to a WSJ article today 2.2 million of the toys were recalled for led paint and 17.4 million pieces for magnets being too small
So, 19.6 million toys were recalled… of the more than 800 million Mattel produces on an annual basis. That is a 2.45% failure rate (manufacturing failure rate was .275% vs. product design failure rate 2.18%) assuming all the toys were made this year…..

3) Baby Cribs - The most recent recall, this is the one that really makes me scratch my head. Following the death of 3 babies/ toddlers, a recall of more than 1 million baby cribs has been initiated.

That is a failure rate of .0003%

But according to reports

in all three deaths, consumers had installed the drop-rail side of the crib upside down, the agency said. This creates a gap in the crib that children can slide into and suffocate.

so… 999,997 put the cribs together properly?

Continue reading »

It is funny how 6 weeks can make all the difference, and how villains today can be vindicated through time.

Well, China… take your victory lap!

Maybe I am going making too much of it, but the fact that the COO of Mattel recently apologized to senior leaders of China for the recent recalls (and their failure to properly assess the responsibility) must be a huge boost to Beijing who has contended all along that the majority of recalls were design related.

Now.. if only FTS would come out and take responsibility for their products….