STOCKHOLM FURNITURE FAIR 2010
NEW YORK INTERNATIONAL GIFT FAIR 2010
DETROIT AUTO SHOW 2010
POSTCARDS FROM ASIA, PART TWO
CES 2010
Posted by Xanthe Matychak | 6 Aug 2007
|
Comments (8)
There's a lot of press these days about the lack of quality control for products made overseas. And there's a lot of conjecturing on who, exactly, should be responsible for making sure that materials like, let's say, lead paint aren't used for toys.
We wonder if the recent recall of nearly a million toys, designed by Fisher-Price and manufactured in China, could have been avoided entirely if FP's designers were versed in life cycle analysis. Sure, LCA isn't necessarily part of the job description, but won't you be employee-of-the-month when your LCA skills prevent a dangerous and enormously expensive mistake like this one from happening in the first place?
1 Hour Design Challenge
Stockholm Design Week 2010
Core77 + AAVA Mobile
Detroit Auto Show
Comments
Unlikely designers could have done much to prevent this (or had anything to do with it in the first place). Much more likely that the manufacturer or a supplier somewhere in the chain sub'd in a below-spec material to save costs without telling Mattel.
Not to say that designers should not have more familiarity with the materials they are spec'ing, but this isn't an LCA issue, it's a QC issue that involves people much later in the production chain than designers.
Companies look at what happened with FP as an anomaly.
More likely you'll be an ex-employee for always telling them that they need to spend more on materials.
LCA?? I fail to see any relevance ... ?
Are you saying FP Designers Specified toxic lead paint in childrens toys?
Unfortunately, the designers at Fisher Price aren't in the position to dictate how their products will be manufactured. Fisher Price will always choose the cheapest way to make their products in the least expensive manner possible, regardless of its environmental impact, because they value their profits over their responsibility to preserve the environment or the health of their customers. This will never change until the fundamental nature of business itself changes, as it is an inherent trait of corporate practice.
I don't know that the blame/responsibility rests squarely upon the shoulders of the designers. There are a lot of stakeholders in the design process and each has a responsibility to delivering a well developed product.
I am currently working on a program that will drive our new sustainability initiatives. One of the lessons that we were able to draw from the PLA (Product Life cycle Assessment) was that there is a bit of a disconnect between what you tell your factories to do and what they actually do.
Everyone knows that China is currently mirroring the Industrial Revolutions of the Americas and Europe. Unfortunately they are also mirroring the poor mindset that "Capital is king" and everything else is a trifle.
Experience has shown examples where a designer may spec a certain paint or material, but the factory will use a cheaper substitute(while charging you the same price) to increase their profits.
There seems to be only one way to avoid this and that is by rigorous monitoring procedures. Better yet have dedicated product team member on the floor to monitor production. That may seem like an expensive measure to some, but then again it's a lot less expensive than recalls and lawsuits.
I'll echo these thoughts again. I don't see how LCA has anything to do with these events or the designers for that matter.
This is an issue of consumers demanding cheap products which forces companies to pinch pennies and put pressure on their supplier. All the while people want higher quality, higher wages, etc (here and in China). This is what happens when the last straw breaks and a factory tries to make a profit as well as making their customer happy.
Anyone who has any design experience working with a factory should know this, and probably has had to deal with it.
True. Designers are not solely responsible for QC. But it is safe to say that the more people we have on board monitoring the supply chain, the more likely mistakes like this will be nipped in the bud.
As an engineer who works for Fisher Price, one who's job it is to assist the designers in ensuring the safety of children's toys regardless of cost, I can't tell you how disappointed I was to find out about this lead paint recall...especially when we just received a glowing review from the New York Times less than 2 weeks ago about our product integrity group in China. Our designers have never specified what type of paint to use, other than color, and it has ALWAYS been our policy to use paints free of heavy metals (i.e. lead). And I disagree that it is an "inherent" part of corporate practice to sacrifice consumer safety in order to save money. Why would Fisher Price, or any legitimate company for that matter, intentionally make an unsafe toy when there are millions of dollars at stake in product recalls? Not to mention bad press? It's just not worth the risk. This is what they teach you in Business 101.
Clearly the flaw lies somewhere at the vendor level in China. Unfortunately I don't have any more information regarding this...