>>
>>>4. Too much Quality can ruin you
>>
>>This is absolute nonsense! I'm going to seriously consider selling the stock I own in the company. How can you have "Too much Quality"? I doubt if the man even knows the definition of "quality". Quality is simply conformance to requirements. Period. End of story. You cause quality to happen by doing things right the first time. Producing quality products and services is actually cheaper than doing otherwise. The company I work for produces carpet. We are the largest manufacturer in the world. We consistently are the low price leader, while at the same time the leader in quality. If Damier-Benz/Chrysler held as much of the market as we do, they'd easily have to sell 10 times the number of cars that they do. This is utter rubish.
>>
>
> My take on this is a little different. Sure, you're intake manifold/throttle body/(insert part here) can be machined to within .00001% tolerance, but it will cost you 15X more than the part that's machined to .1% tolerance and perform nearly as well. In these type of cases, too much "quality" can ruin you. That may not jive perfectly with the definition of "quality" but I think the idea of "Lutz's Laws" were to be provocative and to get people to rethink things that were just assumed to be true.

Hi Paul,

Sorry, but you're missing the point. This has nothing to do with machining tolerances (BTW, I happened to be working in a machine shop when I first encounter the "Quality is Free" concept.) The question is what requirements and what does it cost not to meet those?

I'm afraid that this "Lutz Law" is nonsense simply because it never establishes a definition for quality.