Who Should Pay for Checking Fixtures?

This is a simple question with a complicated answer. There have been various tendencies over time, and they have been changing according to the point of view established by OEMs.

At the beginning, checking fixtures used to be designed and manufactured by OEMs. They were the ones who began to impose their use. Later on, with the transfer of responsibilities on the scale of value to TIER1 and TIER2, the latter where the ones in charge of designing and manufacturing checking fixtures with their own production process. In some cases, depending on the global negotiation with the OEM, checking fixtures could be the property, in some cases, of the OEM, and in other cases, of the supplier.

Lately, this situation is changing again, because OEMs have realised the importance of quality and dimensional control in the production process. The investments in dimensional controls are the first ones in suffering cuts when budgets are adjusted, and all the critical points are not always checked as they should be. OEMs are seing now that cutting down costs for checking means multiplicates non-quality costs exponentially, and this must end up in higher costs for them, in some way.

We have seen two tendencies:

• a) in the first one, OEMs give the final responsibility to their part suppliers, but actively participate in the design of the checking fixtures and, once their manufacturing is over, are in charge of checking and validating their functionnality, repeatability, etc. In that case, although the TIER1 takes on the responsibility for the checking fixtures, the OEM has a detailed knowledge of their quality, and of the checking fixtures supplier market (names, quality offered, seriousness…)
• b) in the second one, OEM take on their initial function of designing and manufacturing checking fixtures, in order to give/impose them to their suppliers, later. Some of them are creating specific departments to deal with all these tasks.

Both approaches have their advantages and disadvantages, but are in all cases better than when OEM did not want to deal with this issue at all. There have been quite a lot of occasions when checking fixtures were not produced in the end, or were so basic that they could not be called checking fixtures, in spite of the fact that the OEM had paid them as requested, and at a high price. It is obvious that a product that has to go through all the chain of value will go more and more expensive at each step. This shows the advantage for the OEM to purchase directly checking fixtures. Moreover, if we want, for example, to get some traceability for the use of checking fixtures, it will be difficult to have the suppliers risk to reveal their own faults by improving their checking systems. Even though doing an intensive check of parts can only, in my opinion, improve the situation of the suppliers, reduce modifications costs, scraps, etc, and give them an advantage on their competition, it seems that for some TIER1 this would only give them more problems.

In many occasions, when we propose to a TIER1 an automation for a checking fixture in order to check more quickly, improve the reliability and repeatability of the checking fixture, etc., he automatically goes to his customer OEM to give him our economic proposal, and have him take the responsibility of the investment. This is a huge mistake, since the TIER1 is the first one who will benefit from the investment, whether the OEM wants to bear the investment or not. The TIER1 is the first one who will gain something, but most of the proposal we do end up being refused by the TIER1, with the excuse that the OEM is the one who does not want to take on the investment.

The debate has been started. What do our readers think about it?