EUC Quality Management (Assembly/Production)

[Tilmann]

Lately, GotWay's seemingly below average quality standards in combination with the risk exposure merely from the high speed these beasts allow, became the catalyst for a more generic discussion about Quality Management and Quality Assurance. As this is relevant for all EUCs regardless of brand, I suggest collecting our thoughts on this topic in a separate thread. To prevent a wild mishmash of ideas (and risking to loose sight of some important ones), I also propose to separate

EUC Quality Management (Assembly / Production) - in this thread here, and

EUC Quality Management (Product Design / Change Management) - in another thread.

 

In this place I suggest to collect and discuss all measures we expect any responsible EUC manufacturer to apply to his production of any given (i.e. readily designed)  EUC model to prevent

1. Failure of the wheel to keep the rider in balance when operating the EUC inside the advertised margins,
2. Secondary risks, like fire hazards,
3. Failure of the wheel to complete a planned trip,
4. Failure of advertised functionality/properties (e.g. Bluetooth, water resistance) 
5. Poor production quality reducing the lifespan of the EUC or its components (e.g. by corrosion),
6. Poor assembly impacting the serviceability of the wheel (e.g. by using glue instead of screws),
7. Incomplete delivery (missing/wrong parts, screws, etc.),
8. Cosmetic imperfections.

Is this list complete? Do you agree with the sequence of priorities?

Once we settled on a common list of goals for production Q-management, what can we do directly and short term to make it happen? At least: to start a dialog with manufacturers and come closer to finding and implementing the desired balance between QA efforts and price impact for each of the brands we love?

My suggestion: we develop a questionnaire for manufacturers listing concrete QA measures and ask for the current way they operate, their willingness to implement the measures, expected price impact and comments.
Next, we appoint one Q-spokesperson per brand we love and care about out of our membership. If we find more than one candidate for a brand, we vote. If there is no candidate for any particular brand, tough luck, you're out. Personally, I would not exclude anybody (except manufacturers and their employees of course). An elected Q-spokesperson can be a dealer, "fanboy", accident victim or anybody else who cares enough about production quality and feels able and is trusted to communicate effectively with a manufacturer. Those Q-spokespersons present our questionnaire to their respective manufacturer, explain the context and the weight and reach of this forum they represent (5000 members and probably >50.000 readers; @John Eucist can you help with some impressive stats?) and collect their respective brands responses for us. Dealers may utilize this dialog to negotiate production of special Q-Edition wheels incorporating quality improvements defined by this process under the condition, that they may reserve exclusive rights for distribution for max. 6 month - after that, any special Q-Edition wheels need to be available to all sales channels.

Does this approach make sense to you? Is it fair? Any more promising suggestions to move things quicker? Would you even consider being a Q-spokesperson, if so: what brand?

 

Manufacturer Questionnaire: this will become a multi-page list of questions and must try to include all the "crowd intelligence" from our members. Just to get things startet, let me try to write up 3 examples:

Quality Measure: Written/pictured Work Place Instructions

• Do you have written/pictured work instructions for every step of the assembly of every currently produced EUC model available for all assembly workers?
• Do those instructions clearly show, what parts to use?
• Do those instructions show, what tools to use and what the correct settings are (e.g. torque setting for electric screw drivers; pressure setting to fill tires, soldering temperature)?
• Do those instructions include cabling plans and show exactly, how cables must be routed?
• Do those instructions clearly show, which parts need to be secured for vibration or humidity with sealant, glue or tape and how it must be applied?
• Do those instructions include decision making, which parts are fit for assembly and how to identify parts, which are not?
• Do those instructions include measures against ESD damage to electronic parts (like wearing a ground strap)?
• How do those instructions prevent high current sparking during assembly?
  • By enforcing a sequence of steps, which ensure equal levels of battery charge status and proper sequence of connection.
  • By requesting the worker to charge the batteries to equal level?
• What is an assembly worker expected to do, if something "does not want to fit" according to plan?
  • Make it fit?
  • Ask a co-worker for help?
  • Ask an engineer/manager for help?
• Do you maintain a "white list" of parts/components, which may be repaired when faulty (e.g. connectors, incorrectly seated tires)?
  • If no, do you maintain a "black list" of parts/components, which must not be repaired (e.g. straightening of a bent motor axis; exchange of a single battery cell)?

Do you agree to show the existing work place instructions to our Quality Spokesperson? Do you require a NDA for that?

For those suggested measures, which are not in use yet: do you plan or consider introducing them?

 

Quality Measure: Single Item Tracking Data

• Do you keep complete records, which assembly worker performed which assembly tasks per EUC serial number?
• Do you keep records of all parts and modules purchased from suppliers with the respective supplier batch IDs?
  • If so, do you keep records of which parts from which supplier batches were used to build which EUC by serial number?
•  Do you record all failed parts prior to assembly, during assembly and after (i.e. in complete units)?
• For every supplier batch consumed completely, can you evaluate the number of good vs. rejected/failed parts?
  • If so, can you differentiate failed parts by EUC model, they had been consumed into (e.g. failed MOSFETs in model A vs. failed MOSFETs of same source/type/batch in model B)?
  • Can you differentiate the above by firmware revision used in the affected EUCs?
  • If so, is such an analysis possible with little effort or does it require substantial manual work?

Do you agree to show these records (without price information) to our Quality Spokesperson? Do you require a NDA for that?

For those suggested measures, which are not in use yet: do you plan or consider introducing them? If so, in the form of paper records or as an IT solution?

 

Quality Measure: Incoming Goods Inspection

• Do you have a process in place that requires an explicit internal release before any incoming goods may be used for production?
  • If so, what is the qualification of the person in charge of the release?
• Do you receive complete manufacturer batch information along with the goods delivered to you (i.e. can you tell precisely, which items have been produced in which production run)?
• Do you receive trustworthy documentation along with incoming goods about the quality category of the parts/modules (e.g. "automotive grade" certification)?
• Do you perform a technical inspection of incoming goods before release? If so,
  • by visual inspection (100% or % of sample size)?
  • by non-destructive functional testing (100% or % of sample size)?
  • by destructive testing (% of sample size or number of items per batch)?
• What test setups are available to you (e.g. motor test stand; circuitry for main board stress testing, metering equipment for sensors or battery capacity)?
  • If so, own equipment on site or option to rent/test externally?
• Do you keep manufacturing batches of incoming goods separated until consumption in assembly?

Do you agree to show inspection and test protocols to our Quality Spokesperson? Do you require a NDA for that?

For those suggested measures, which are not in use yet: do you plan or consider introducing them? If so, what testing rigs do you plan to introduce?

 

  ... to be improved/completed! Obviously there are more questions to ask, like own quality checks by the manufacturer during and after assembly ...

[meepmeepmayer]

Might be easier to just start our own manufacturer

Good effort. Maybe something concrete and simple enough comes out of it so Chinese manufacturers (or at least GW, KS seem to be improving on their own) will implement something.

[John Eucist]

4 hours ago, Tilmann said:

Those Q-spokespersons present our questionnaire to their respective manufacturer, explain the context and the weight and reach of this forum they represent (5000 members and probably >50.000 readers; @John Eucist can you help with some impressive stats?) and collect their respective brands responses for us.

Sorry I don't have any more info than you do (the stats that are listed on the front page). I've never set up "Google Analytics" or anything for this forum because: 1) It's not a business. 2) I'm not technical enough to bother to set it up. 3) I'm lazy.  

EDIT: Okay I just pasted some snippet code from Google for analytics. So maybe I'll get some data from now on.

[Carlos E Rodriguez]

5 hours ago, Tilmann said:

Lately, GotWay's seemingly below average quality standards in combination with the risk exposure merely from the high speed these beasts allow, became the catalyst for a more generic discussion about Quality Management and Quality Assurance. As this is relevant for all EUCs regardless of brand, I suggest collecting our thoughts on this topic in a separate thread. To prevent a wild mishmash of ideas (and risking to loose sight of some important ones), I also propose to separate

EUC Quality Management (Assembly / Production) - in this thread here, and

EUC Quality Management (Product Design / Change Management) - in another thread.

 

In this place I suggest to collect and discuss all measures we expect any responsible EUC manufacturer to apply to his production of any given (i.e. readily designed)  EUC model to prevent

1. Failure of the wheel to keep the rider in balance when operating the EUC inside the advertised margins,
2. Secondary risks, like fire hazards,
3. Failure of the wheel to complete a planned trip,
4. Failure of advertised functionality/properties (e.g. Bluetooth, water resistance) 
5. Poor production quality reducing the lifespan of the EUC or its components (e.g. by corrosion),
6. Poor assembly impacting the serviceability of the wheel (e.g. by using glue instead of screws),
7. Incomplete delivery (missing/wrong parts, screws, etc.),
8. Cosmetic imperfections.

Is this list complete? Do you agree with the sequence of priorities?

Once we settled on a common list of goals for production Q-management, what can we do directly and short term to make it happen? At least: to start a dialog with manufacturers and come closer to finding and implementing the desired balance between QA efforts and price impact for each of the brands we love?

My suggestion: we develop a questionnaire for manufacturers listing concrete QA measures and ask for the current way they operate, their willingness to implement the measures, expected price impact and comments.
Next, we appoint one Q-spokesperson per brand we love and care about out of our membership. If we find more than one candidate for a brand, we vote. If there is no candidate for any particular brand, tough luck, you're out. Personally, I would not exclude anybody (except manufacturers and their employees of course). An elected Q-spokesperson can be a dealer, "fanboy", accident victim or anybody else who cares enough about production quality and feels able and is trusted to communicate effectively with a manufacturer. Those Q-spokespersons present our questionnaire to their respective manufacturer, explain the context and the weight and reach of this forum they represent (5000 members and probably >50.000 readers; @John Eucist can you help with some impressive stats?) and collect their respective brands responses for us. Dealers may utilize this dialog to negotiate production of special Q-Edition wheels incorporating quality improvements defined by this process under the condition, that they may reserve exclusive rights for distribution for max. 6 month - after that, any special Q-Edition wheels need to be available to all sales channels.

Does this approach make sense to you? Is it fair? Any more promising suggestions to move things quicker? Would you even consider being a Q-spokesperson, if so: what brand?

 

Manufacturer Questionnaire: this will become a multi-page list of questions and must try to include all the "crowd intelligence" from our members. Just to get things startet, let me try to write up 3 examples:

Quality Measure: Written/pictured Work Place Instructions

• Do you have written/pictured work instructions for every step of the assembly of every currently produced EUC model available for all assembly workers?
• Do those instructions clearly show, what parts to use?
• Do those instructions show, what tools to use and what the correct settings are (e.g. torque setting for electric screw drivers; pressure setting to fill tires, soldering temperature)?
• Do those instructions include cabling plans and show exactly, how cables must be routed?
• Do those instructions clearly show, which parts need to be secured for vibration or humidity with sealant, glue or tape and how it must be applied?
• Do those instructions include decision making, which parts are fit for assembly and how to identify parts, which are not?
• Do those instructions include measures against ESD damage to electronic parts (like wearing a ground strap)?
• How do those instructions prevent high current sparking during assembly?
  • By enforcing a sequence of steps, which ensure equal levels of battery charge status and proper sequence of connection.
  • By requesting the worker to charge the batteries to equal level?
• What is an assembly worker expected to do, if something "does not want to fit" according to plan?
  • Make it fit?
  • Ask a co-worker for help?
  • Ask an engineer/manager for help?
• Do you maintain a "white list" of parts/components, which may be repaired when faulty (e.g. connectors, incorrectly seated tires)?
  • If no, do you maintain a "black list" of parts/components, which must not be repaired (e.g. straightening of a bent motor axis; exchange of a single battery cell)?

Do you agree to show the existing work place instructions to our Quality Spokesperson? Do you require a NDA for that?

For those suggested measures, which are not in use yet: do you plan or consider introducing them?

 

Quality Measure: Single Item Tracking Data

• Do you keep complete records, which assembly worker performed which assembly tasks per EUC serial number?
• Do you keep records of all parts and modules purchased from suppliers with the respective supplier batch IDs?
  • If so, do you keep records of which parts from which supplier batches were used to build which EUC by serial number?
•  Do you record all failed parts prior to assembly, during assembly and after (i.e. in complete units)?
• For every supplier batch consumed completely, can you evaluate the number of good vs. rejected/failed parts?
  • If so, can you differentiate failed parts by EUC model, they had been consumed into (e.g. failed MOSFETs in model A vs. failed MOSFETs of same source/type/batch in model B)?
  • Can you differentiate the above by firmware revision used in the affected EUCs?
  • If so, is such an analysis possible with little effort or does it require substantial manual work?

Do you agree to show these records (without price information) to our Quality Spokesperson? Do you require a NDA for that?

For those suggested measures, which are not in use yet: do you plan or consider introducing them? If so, in the form of paper records or as an IT solution?

 

Quality Measure: Incoming Goods Inspection

• Do you have a process in place that requires an explicit internal release before any incoming goods may be used for production?
  • If so, what is the qualification of the person in charge of the release?
• Do you receive complete manufacturer batch information along with the goods delivered to you (i.e. can you tell precisely, which items have been produced in which production run)?
• Do you receive trustworthy documentation along with incoming goods about the quality category of the parts/modules (e.g. "automotive grade" certification)?
• Do you perform a technical inspection of incoming goods before release? If so,
  • by visual inspection (100% or % of sample size)?
  • by non-destructive functional testing (100% or % of sample size)?
  • by destructive testing (% of sample size or number of items per batch)?
• What test setups are available to you (e.g. motor test stand; circuitry for main board stress testing, metering equipment for sensors or battery capacity)?
  • If so, own equipment on site or option to rent/test externally?
• Do you keep manufacturing batches of incoming goods separated until consumption in assembly?

Do you agree to show inspection and test protocols to our Quality Spokesperson? Do you require a NDA for that?

For those suggested measures, which are not in use yet: do you plan or consider introducing them? If so, what testing rigs do you plan to introduce?

 

  ... to be improved/completed! Obviously there are more questions to ask, like own quality checks by the manufacturer during and after assembly ...

Impressive work!  But I think it need to be simpler. At least at the big inning to stablish a relationship. We are going to need a Chinese representative. 

Iblike what you did. 

Maybe first contact should just be a list of the issues we need fixed now. 

 Ex.  

Defective apps. 

Fix MOSFET blowouts. 

Fix BMS cutoffs  

Fix tolerances  

fix weak pedal shaft .

 

[Dingfelder]

I think all complaints should be dated to help pin down the likelihood and traceability of a bad batch versus random breakdowns.  

Links to all reported incidents should be kept.

A simple complaint/breakdown form that complainants could fill out would make the data more digestible for casual study and would facility data base entry for more serious study.

[Tilmann]

8 hours ago, John Eucist said:

Sorry I don't have any more info than you do (the stats that are listed on the front page). I've never set up "Google Analytics" or anything for this forum because: 1) It's not a business. 2) I'm not technical enough to bother to set it up. 3) I'm lazy.  

EDIT: Okay I just pasted some snippet code from Google for analytics. So maybe I'll get some data from now on.

Thanks much @John Eucist! Can't even begin to tell you, how grateful I am for you starting and hosting this forum - so, I sure didn't mean to push for more. 

Google Analytics, huh? At least, we're getting high quality EUC spam from now on  

[Tilmann]

8 hours ago, Carlos E Rodriguez said:

Impressive work!  But I think it need to be simpler. At least at the big inning to stablish a relationship. We are going to need a Chinese representative. 

Iblike what you did. 

Maybe first contact should just be a list of the issues we need fixed now. 

 Ex.  

Defective apps. 

Fix MOSFET blowouts. 

Fix BMS cutoffs  

Fix tolerances  

fix weak pedal shaft .

 

Thanks @Carlos E Rodriguez! While we are on the same subject, we are closing in from two different angles: You are talking "fire fighting", I am talking "fire prevention". 

Bear with me, please, I am little of a technical expert, but a consultant at heart: I have seen time and again, how businesses fail by just reacting to problems at hand, but neglect to develop a systematical approach to prevent such problems to occur in the first place. It's part of the growing pains of small enterprises, I guess.

Investing in quality often seems like a luxurious waste of money initially. Why hire a completely unproductive "Quality Engineer", when you don't have enough people to assemble desperately awaited orders? That's where I believe we must step in: Regardless, of what design principles we prefer (enforced safety limits vs. choice to deactivate the safeguards), none of us wants to faceplant, because of crappy parts inside our wheels or stupid, undiscovered mistakes during montage. Here, we all agree! 

So, it's up to us to let the manufacturers know, that we expect 2018 EUCs not only to be "faster, higher, wider", but positively more reliable. Every. Single. One. 

Next year, I want to unpack and test ride my new wheel with sweaty palms from pure excitement - not the sweat of fear, my new pal may fail me miserably. 
And I beg all of you, to help making that happen.

[Spark]

1. Failure of the wheel to keep the rider in balance when operating the EUC inside the advertised margins,

imho every EUC app should at least have a weight slider to determine the safety margins of operation for a specific wheel.

People who lie about their weight can't be helped 

of course in an ideal world every EUC would have a weight sensor but I'm afraid that's a pipe dream for now 

[Tilmann]

@Spark: Great suggestion - I'll make sure we include that when we hopefully get far enough with this to collect a list of design principles! I really like the fact, that it promises more accurate warnings while being pretty easy to implement. What could be a bit more challenging is making it safe for the casual change of riders (you know, that "wanna try mine"-situation at group rides).

One idea to solve that: store individual settings on an RFID chip for example in an ankle strap. That could also solve the issue, that any "beginners speed restrictions" for the first 100 km or custom settings to turn off alarm and tilt back should really be dependent on the rider, not the wheel. Letting a beginner ride such an "unlocked" beast, is a bad idea. So, the wheel defaults to the safes possible setting. Only the presence of the RFID switches to the customized settings, incl. riders weight.

Geez, now you got me to troll my own thread off topic .... 

[Dingfelder]

6 hours ago, Spark said:

 

 

i love that weight sensor idea.

[esaj]

13 hours ago, Tilmann said:

One idea to solve that: store individual settings on an RFID chip for example in an ankle strap. That could also solve the issue, that any "beginners speed restrictions" for the first 100 km or custom settings to turn off alarm and tilt back should really be dependent on the rider, not the wheel. Letting a beginner ride such an "unlocked" beast, is a bad idea. So, the wheel defaults to the safes possible setting. Only the presence of the RFID switches to the customized settings, incl. riders weight.