“Pre-emptive Control” in Quality Management

　　The advanced management principles and philosophies of quality‑management guru Dr. W. Edwards Deming have helped countless enterprises, even turning the tide for companies on the brink of bankruptcy. Consequently, in today’s business environment, the application of scientific management methods and mindsets not only refines our production processes but also reduces manufacturing costs, strengthens our competitive position in a fiercely contested market, and enables us to grow larger and more resilient.
　　How to apply advanced management principles to practical work is, in fact, a question that each of us involved in quality control should ponder. As we all know, the process of product quality management can be broadly divided into three stages: the “pre‑event” stage of product quality control, the “in‑process” stage of process control, and the “post‑event” stage of quality inspection and corrective action. In other words, within the quality‑management framework, post‑event inspection and verification serve as the foundation, in‑process control is the key, and proactive preventive measures are indispensable. The central focus of quality management lies in how to achieve effective outcome‑oriented control through robust pre‑event prevention, thereby ensuring product quality more efficiently. Drawing on specific examples from my own experience, I would like to share with my colleagues the insights that “pre‑event control” offers.
　　As the global economy continues to advance, the printed circuit board industry is undergoing quiet yet significant changes. Many products are becoming increasingly sophisticated, with ever‑finer traces on the boards—defects that inspectors once could easily spot under ring lights can now no longer be identified. To meet these evolving requirements, the company acquired automated optical inspection (AOI) equipment, making AOI testing a necessity for outer‑layer assemblies. However, since no one on the team had prior experience using this equipment, initial tests yielded an alarming number of false positives, rendering the process unusable. To address this issue, the company temporarily resorted to adding alumina‑coated brushes before testing. Yet this was only a stopgap measure; we needed to get to the root cause. After careful analysis, we determined that inadequate tin removal during alkaline etching and watermarks were likely responsible. To investigate these problems, we sprang into action, starting at the production line and scrutinizing every potential source of trouble. First, together with our staff, I oversaw maintenance on the tin‑removal section of the second alkaline‑etching line. To my dismay, the sponge rollers had become rigid and completely ineffective at absorbing moisture; the spray nozzles in the tin‑removal zone were clogged, the air knives were blocked, and the rollers were covered in stubborn grime. How could such equipment possibly produce conforming products? The scene was truly shocking. Following the maintenance, I watched with hopeful anticipation as the first batch of finished boards passed AOI inspection without issue. I felt both elated and deeply weighed down: elated because we had finally pinpointed the root cause, eliminating the need to add the alumina‑brush step before testing—thus reducing processing costs and avoiding additional quality concerns introduced by extra steps—and burdened because, despite years of managing product quality, I had never truly grasped the essence of quality control. Every day, I dealt with in‑process defects, engaging in nothing more than basic “quality checks” and “defective‑part handling,” while neglecting proactive prevention and ongoing process control. This left me running from one crisis to another—rushing to put out fires in the east when one flared up, hurrying to fight floods in the west when another erupted, always scrambling to respond wherever problems arose—ultimately straying far from the true path of effective quality management.
　　When one’s mindset changes, so does one’s attitude; when attitude shifts, behavior follows; and when behavior evolves, outcomes transform. Only by transforming our thinking can we perform our work more effectively. As Haier Group Chairman Zhang Ruimin once said, “Doing every simple task well is anything but simple.” In fact, there are countless details in our work that must be refined to ensure product quality. Only by attending to these details can we optimize production processes, reduce manufacturing costs, and enhance our products’ market competitiveness.
　　The principle of “pre‑emptive control” is a professional mindset that each of us should cultivate in our work. Of course, knowing is not the same as doing; only through action can we turn principles into reality.

Wet Process Control Officer: Yu Hong