There are various things to weigh when purchasing a commodity, but certainly the two key aspects must be price and consistency, hop over to here.
Price is straightforward-the three choices are up , down or the same. This is it. A ton more includes price. Secondly, because we do not have a yardstick, we can not measure or even calculate the price of a commodity. There are two forms of doing this and they all have a location. Firstly, consider a competing business offering an identical commodity and associate the features with your own commodity. Better yet, get all of the competing products and produce a checklist of the attributes of each product, compared to each other. Now introduce your own commodity to the list, and see where the price ladder falls.
A second way to assess quality is to generate a product specification (the above-mentioned comparison exercise could feed in this). Some standards require those characteristics to tolerances. For eg, the stitching line of a shirt would need to be inside a channel rather than in a pure straight line. When not more than 2 millimeters from the connection, the volume of glue seepage from a fibreboard box link might be allowable. Such attributes might not be tolerant at all, especially when it comes to a product’s essential feature (such as an on / off switch on an electrical appliance). Issues of health and welfare are generally not permitted as are ethical aspects. Of eg, if this contravenes the rule, an improperly wired mains plug would not be appropriate, nor would inaccurate material labelling.
You then have to consider what to do if a substance is below the tolerances specified. Whether it is a consumer commodity, it may be traded or even disposed of to a jobber. When it is a factory-made commodity it can be returned for rework. But what if the manager of production is under pressure to get goods out to the customer and the controller of quality finds it out of specification? There are a host of solutions that range from “send it back” to “ignor it.” There are different approaches between them, such as throwing the monkey on the back of the customer: “You can get it now with small faults or you can wait for the in-specific commodity until tomorrow.
Production facilities around the world will be familiar with that dilemma. The production staff have pulled out all the stops to meet their deadline-and also very proud of themselves-and this is rejected by the quality controller. Often the role of quality control would have a separate reporting structure which gives them independence from output. Somewhere the lines should intersect, most sometimes to the CEO. And here’s a scenario that’s replicated all over the planet, many times a day: the representative of quality assurance and the representative of output fighting their separate cases before the supervisor. “I paid thousands overtime to get this product out!” says the manufacturer. “The product is not acceptable,” the quality controller says. “It’s out of scope just slightly,” says production …. and so on.
How is the scenario not frequently acted out? The manager finds himself in an difficult position where he must let his company down one way or the other. Will he come open to discuss his dilemma with his client or should he let the commodity go out and hope and pray? Or just stops the product from going out and tells the customer “do what you want, but I’m not letting this factory leave a substandard product.”
Sitting and reading this and saying: “do not let it go down” is quick. It is fine in principle, but if that ensures you ‘re going to lose your client entirely because they don’t have their order on time then you’re in a position of zero. Just take my earlier quality control method: when the competitor products are being lined up for comparison, the product of our boss won’t even be in line if it’s never made for the customer! Its fact, this is the dilemma: what is worse, a product with defects or no product at all? Like I have mentioned, this is a game of zero.