Trust through control: How Daniel Rölli makes quality a team effort
Quality is not just ensured at the final inspection, it starts long beforehand. Daniel Rölli, QM project manager at MCES, checks every delivery precisely and, together with his team, ensures that errors simply do not occur. In this interview, he explains why trust only grows through inspection, which details often cause problems and how his team places quality above quantity, even where a high number of units are concerned.
Fabio Winkelmann, Specialist area Communications, Strategic Staff
Daniel, you’re often the first person to check the delivered MCES parts. What alerts you to thinking: Something’s not right?
I notice it immediately if the inspected delivery is manufactured differently from the advance samples sent beforehand (that’s what the sample before the start of production is called). And if the points that we found fault with in the advance samples have not been corrected in the delivery, you notice it straight away.
What does quality assurance mean for you personally – compared with inspection – and which misconceptions do you frequently encounter?
For me, quality assurance means avoiding errors right from the beginning, instead of only finding them afterwards. This includes systematic checks of advance and series production samples, spot checks in the deliveries, clear process standards, continuous improvements and close cooperation in the team. This enables us to ensure that the processes continuously improve and the products meet the specifications reliably. One frequent misconception, for example, is that good supplier quality will automatically be retained, even in the following year. Or that simple inspection is sufficient, instead of optimising processes actively.
We work with clear priorities, standardized processes and a culture of open exchange and mutual support.
How do you as a team manage to consistently ensure quality above quantity and mutually support each other to this end?
Our Textiles Q team consists of three persons, with me as the “old hand” and my two colleagues who joined this year. We split up the quality inspections – clothing, heavy garments and fabric – according to our own respective strengths. By the end of this year, we’ll be supported in the inspection of MCES articles by colleagues from technology.
In order to consistently ensure quality before quantity with the high number of articles and units and to support each other mutually, our team will focus on clear goals, open communication, trust and an active, positive team culture. These also include the clear allocation of roles, established communication structures, regular knowledge sharing and encouraging a “sense of unity”. In a nutshell – we work with clear priorities, standardised processes and a culture of open exchange as well as mutual support – so that quality always ranks first, even where high numbers of units
Is there an article of clothing or a detail that fails the inspection particularly frequently – and why?
The most difficult are articles with light strips or illuminated letters that have to be fixed to the fabric, and which have to remain affixed even after washing. Equally challenging are articles with welded seams; these are seams that are stuck together with a welding tape so that they become waterproof. This process is particularly difficult as a very large number of parameters have to be exactly right in the welding process.
If you had to summarise the quality inspection at MCES in one sentence – how would you describe it?
The MCES quality inspection is a structured, risk-based and transparent cooperation with clear priorities, standardised processes and early fault detection to ensure quality above quantity.
In the tension between standards, testing procedures and individual assessment, it is important to combine clear guidelines with pragmatic flexibility.
Between standards, test procedures and individual assessment – how do you find the right method in this field of tension? Are there situations in which this was particularly difficult?
In the field of tension between standards, test procedures and individual assessments, what matters is connecting clear guide rails with pragmatic flexibility.
Difficult situations often occur if:
- Standards are vague or dependent on interpretation and no clear handling instructions exist.
- Derogation procedures have to be applied under time pressure and without sufficient data.
- New materials, processes or technologies are introduced for which established inspection procedure do not apply.
- The risk assessment is governed by subjective factors (such as aesthetic requirements versus functional safety).
In such cases, a clear basis for assessment, minimising uncertainty through test runs, additional spot checks and a transparent documentation can help the decision.
Has there been any experience in quality inspection which you remember particularly – perhaps because something turned out completely differently than expected?
Once, we received a delivery of t-shirts. As usual, we carried out a spot check for all sizes and, among other things, checked the neckline width. The results showed that this fell far outside the tolerance range for the t-shirts measured. The reason: The neckline had been processed differently from the advance samples we had inspected and approved.
How do you remain concentrated – even with routine tasks with a high output? Are there any rituals, locations or tools that help you?
Movement is very important for me. I make sure that I stand up and move around regularly, particularly if I’ve been sitting at my desk or standing checking deliveries for a long time. In my private life, I find my balance in travelling, at cultural events or simply by going for a good meal.
