Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters From John Taffin: Marlin Closing

Denton,

I believe that would be a record. Unfortunately, my experience has been in an arena where it took almost two years. That two years slowed the corporation down to a crawl, causing it to lag behind in R & D,among other things, and losing it's competitive edge.

Obviously management had a lot to do with it, but it left a bitter taste in my mouth for the process in an industry that demands quick responses to the market in an arena where we're not building widgets or toasters, we build gear that people's lives depend on.

In an arena where people's lives are at stake, having someone more interested in the "process" than the results does not make for good business.

Ed

Unfortunately, there's no such thing as a "user's mentality" bean for the bean-counters to include in their countings. Some vital considerations require serious thinking, not just counting.

I'm glad I have more than a few Marlins whether they close or not. I can't believe where this topic has gone.

ED ISO is just a just a set of principles that aim at standardization of your manufacturing process . I do agree that it requires the individual worker to perform their task correctly but it also requires strict SPC controls so that if the problems are just someone not giving a hoot they will be identified and removed. However it was my experience that most QC problems occurred because the process or tasks were not clearly defined or some process was not capable. For example if you have a cutting machine that cannot hold the runout spec for threading the barrel shank then that is a engineering problem that needs to be solved by new/better equipment that can pass the capability requirement or redesign of the product or component so that it can be capably produced on existing machinery. Otherwise you are going to get a bunch of crooked barrels because the line assembler is eventually going to get weary of weeding out every other barrel because it is out of spec and he is getting beat on for production #'s. I label it an engineering issue because it is the process/manufacturing engineer that has to insure the capability of the process and correct the problem. Now if the problem is an old worn out cutter then you either buy a new machine , outsource the threading process to to someone that is capable of meeting spec, or close up shop. As I said rifle making isn't that hard and the required spec usually are within a thousandth or maybe two which is quite large with todays precision machinery. My guess was Marlin had a large quantity of worn out equipment that had depended on shop floor tweaking by the line workers rather than repairing the source of the problem and that is the realm of the engineer to ultimately design and build a capable process. ISO is just a frame work under which they do this. Otherwise you have to have Gepetto out there hand building your rifle on a one off basis which makes the cost prohibitive.

Here is a few facts as there seems to be a few people interested in this.

The current ISO Standard for manufacturing is called ISO 9001:2008. The "Standard" is reviewed every 5 years and tweaked to improve. The 2000 version was so good that no changes were made and it was reviewed twice more until 2008 where only the wording within 15 elements was tweaked to try and make it easier to understand.

According to Moody International, which was the 1st ISO Registrar in the US, the average certification takes 2 years with 18 months considered fast. The length of time is directly related to the size and complexity of the business and the number of people assigned to the implementation.

In my Industry, I have never heard of an implementation faster than 4 years and I have met one Quality Manager who took 6 years. The reason is that this task is assigned to a single person to do the whole thing rather than having a team of people to coordinate the implementation.

The unknown fact about ISO is that when business embraced it in the 90's, they adopted the mentality that it could be forced upon vendors and not bothered with for themselves. (This has changed) That caused a huge demand by manufacturing to hire consultants to do these implementations.

1. They do not know your business.
2. They passed the actual workload onto department managers to write everything relating to their areas of responsibility.
3. They convaluted the whole thing but tying it all together with references and cross reference documents.(Making it incomprehensible)
4. They never trained people on how the thing is supposed to work.(In overall compliance not just their immediate contribution)
5. They never held mangagement responsible or accountable to contribute.
6. They drew the whole thing out and bled the companies for every cent they could so it took a looooong time.

The important factor here is twofold:

a) For every 1000 QA Managers in the US, you will find it nearly impossible to find a car load that have actually written and managed an Implementation and Certification.

b) Most of the ISO documents in the US are those same 1990's documents hacked up by everyone who "tried" to do their job.

The last company I worked for had 8 QA Managers in the previosu 9 years. The QA system was a dogs breakfast and incapable of comprehension or success.

Just last week, I was told by a recruiter the same thing I have been told many many times here in the US, and that is if you are a professional administrator and look like you really know your stuff, you are unemployable and no-one wants you looking over their shoulder.

It is a shame, but that is they was I see it as well.

ISO in a nutshell:

1. Formalize procedures
2. Train and determine competence to perform each role
3. Develope standards and specification for all raw materials and consumables.
4. Review all orders before acceptance to ensure you can meet (all) specifications
5. Plan job accordingly and review Manufacturing specifications
6. Audit Processes for Compliance
7. Generate Audit results for Management Review
8. Management to assign corrective amd preventative action assignments and Senior Managment to review for compliance nad effectiveness.

I skipped through it but you get the idea. I have been audited by may ISO auditors and Registrars over the last 15 years and every single one, without exception says that the greatest non conformance in every company, is always the Top Management not supporting and contributing to the Quality Managemtn System.

Now remember that the ISO Standard is not industry specific and each element applies to any business so these auditors cover a huge amount of the manufacturing sector each year. The requirements are the same.

John

Having worked with many ISO certified companies and being a certified auditor, I can tell you it's nothing but crap. It doesn't improve quality at all.

You sir, just demonstrated you competence as a certified auditor.

bangeye,

Thank you for your explanation.

I should probably have not posted in the first place as I am still stinging from my recent departure from a company that implemented ISO certification and then began a downward spiral.
After having an offline conversation with AussieGunWriter I fully appreciate that the problem was/is a management problem, not a program problem.

Thank you again.

Ed

Pretty much how it works. Was once a lowly QC tech for a major electronics components manufacturer, many years ago.

Constant tussle between production/sales and QC. The former, primarily interested in making/selling/shipping products; The latter, only interested in making sure that products met spec.

Production/sales generally has more clout than the dweebs in the trenches, who insist on gummin' up the works by doing their jobs and making sure that things actually "wind up" as they are presented.

Never a problem to put the NFG stamp on a product when it got to me, if it didn't meet spec? That's what they paid me to do. What others did with it afterwards, was out of my hands.

An age-old and endless tussle, but companies that are dedicated to actually making what their sales people offer, are the best companies to be found.

John,

Thank you for your explanation. Taking a bit more objective look than I did yesterday, the program can be a tremendous benefit IF it is applied correctly.

I see where my experience was in a setting where the program was/is corrupted by failure to properly apply the program, not the program itself.

Given the nature of some people to protect their position instead of looking out for the best interests of the company, they fail to implement processes and to hold people accountable for poor performance.

Failure of upper management to recognize the importance of the Quality Manager, place a compentent person in that position, and thus grant the QM the authority to make substantial changes can, and will result in failure to reap the benefits of the program and will cause the company to fall even more behind in it's goals.

Thnaks again to you and the others for taking the time to help with my understandng of the program.

Also, my apologies to the OP for hijacking the thread. I hope that Marlin can correct the issues and get back to making some of the finest firearms in the world.

Ed

This is too bad. Marlin is a great (old) name and will be missed.

So let's see. Ten pages in and we have:

A completely unattributed quote, allegedly from John Taffin, saying Marlin is closing.

A reference to a supposed fax, without a copy, saying Marlin is suspending operations until it gets its QC act together. (Which would be a good thing in the long run. IF it's true.)

Long personal arguments about John Taffin's expertise / the merits of ISO 9000 (despite no evidence as to whether or not Marlin is using it) / various slanders as to the personal hygiene / ancestry of other posters and NOT ONE FACT to base any of it on.

Just another day on the internet.

I�ve been involved in the development of ISO (International Standards Organization) standards as a committee member and as rappateur (secretary, recorder and coordinator for the committees). There is a long and arduous process to get an ISO standard or certification and it involves a lot of detailed work and agreement with the various international committee members. There are about 20,000 ISO standards and about 2,000 are now being developed each year.

There is nothing magical about ISO standards or certification. The committee (or company) establishes its own standards and then works with the committee members until all agree with the standard; it is then submitted for official ISO publication.

If a company wants to be ISO certified to make the lowest quality products in the world, it just has to establish a certification committee, identify (low) standards, get agreement and then submit it to ISO for acceptance and publication. ISO (who charges each participating national ISO affiliate for membership and for selling copies of the published standard) will conduct periodic inspections and data reviews to ensure that you (and everyone else who wants to adopt the standard) are still making products that meet the standard (whether good or bad).

I am not saying that ISO certification is intended to get low quality products, but to say that the petitioner is the one who decides what he wants to make or certify and the quality he wants to incorporate; the ISO just formalizes the standard and sells it to all interested parties. The real advantage of ISO certification is to the consumer, especially in areas like electronic equipment. ISO standards ensure that all (say) computer plugs connect and work the same way regardless of who made the equipment.

ABSOLUTELY! Don't you just love it?

This is what sitting around a campfire is all about. The conversations can run from factual information and actually learning something, to useless drivel, to personal attacks. All within a minute!

I hope your day is as entertaining and educational as mine has been so far.

Ed

The funniest and factual statement I ever heard about ISO Certifications is that you can manufacture a cement life saving jacket and it will meet ISO Standards if you design the standards that way.

I don't think you would sell many outside Chicago however.

John

djs,

I knew that the company was involved in writing the specs as no one set of specs/standards can fit all types of industry.

What I didn't understand was that the company was responsible for setting their expectations of quality through the quality of the their own standards.

I made a call this morning to one of my former coworkers and discovered that you have hit the nail on the head.

Thanks again for the input.

Ed

Why Marlin isn't going anywhere. They will be back up and running as soon as the retraining is completed.

Is that your "final answer"???


If so, I guess we can rest easy....

I guess I'll throw in my $.02 off my soapbox...

I've been involved with ISO systems for 13 years now, and run a small factory that is ISO Certified. I'm also charged at the same time (small company) with making money and growing sales - which does not happen if you torque off your customers.

No question that if you make poor management decisions, ISO may not save you. It works well in preventing problems, and requiring one to make steady progress or "continual" improvement. As far as ISO being "best" I was just told this morning if I want to make parts for a certain large airplane company, I need to upgrade our system to AS9100. I will indeed consider it.

If these rumors are true about Marlin, I'd bet that some "Lean Guru" waltzed into the process, took a cursory review, and decided for himself that Process/Machine/Inspection 'X' was unecessary and wasteful. The old hands may have protested that 'X' was necessary, and either were ignored, or they were told they were "resistant to change" and pushed aside, which is a favorite political ploy of "Lean Gurus".

The problem was, 'X' existed becuase you had a major problem every 6 months without it, or you were unable to make product Y very well. Have a few X's in a factory that are tinkered with, and you start to have major problems.

The Lean Manufacturing premise is - get rid of things that don't add value for the customer - is sound. The problem is a "guru" makes decisions without fully understanding what adds value in a given plant, and that's when positive change turns into a CF.

How fast can we get that order filled and drop shipped?

Ed