A recall can be one of the worst things that can happen to a manufacturer.
Not only can the recall itself be expensive and time-consuming, but any negative publicity from recalling a defective product—especially if the defect becomes public before the recall—can be devastating.
Nevertheless, the insights gleaned from past recalls can be valuable to those who wish to avoid the mistakes of the past. To that end, let’s review three major recalls from the automotive industry.
Ford and Firestone Tires
Early model Ford Explorers showed a tendency toward rollover in company crash tests and rather than redesign the vehicles, Ford elected to specify a lower pressure (26 psi) to its supplier, Bridgestone.
The lower pressure led to increased heat on the tire, which in turn increased the likelihood of tread separation. While it’s possible to compensate for this issue by placing a nylon cap over the steel belts within a tire, Bridgestone did not implement this solution until after the recall.
Although liability for the tire tread separation has been the subject of considerable debate, Bridgestone was forced to replace all ATX and ATX II tires in P235/75R15 sizes. The company even went as far as offering USD$100 per tire for customers who wished to purchase competitors’ tires as replacements.
This incident raises important questions about the nature of quality assurance. How far does the quality professional’s duty extend? Is it enough to verify that the product was made according to specifications, or is there an obligation to go beyond the product itself and consider how and under what circumstances it will be used?
Toyota’s Unintended Acceleration
In response to these recalls, the NHTSA issued an advisory clarifying the difference between the two issues. The agency confirmed that, as of February 2010, five people in two separate incidents had died as a result of pedal entrapment, but no deaths or injuries occurred as a result of the sticky pedal.
Although investigations into these incidents were conducted by the United States Congress, as well as the NHTSA, the Japanese Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism (MLIT) and even NASA, identifying the number of actual incidents caused by these defects was problematic. This was, in part, due to the difficulty of ruling out driver error in apparent cases of unintended acceleration.
Despite the uncertainty regarding the number of injuries and fatalities, Toyota eventually agreed to a $1.2 billion fine from the US Attorney General.
The company also agreed to allow an independent monitor to review its polices and procedures relating to its safety communications process, its process for internally sharing vehicle accident information and its process for preparing and sharing technical reports.
In addition, Toyota was hit with a class action lawsuit, which claimed the company was guilty of breaching warranties, unjust enrichment and violations of various state consumer protection statutes. Although the company denied these claims, it eventually settled the suit for $1.6 billion.
The profound lack of clarity regarding the causes of Toyota’s unintended acceleration issues illustrate the importance of proactive quality assurance. Despite the idiom that hindsight is 20/20, this incident demonstrates the difficulties of investigating product failures after the product has shipped.
Takata’s Airbags
In 2014, the NHTSA received several complaints about injuries resulting from airbags that had ruptured and released flying shrapnel when they deployed.
The defects were traced to Takata’s Mexican subsidiary, TK Holdings Inc., which had mishandled the manufacture of the explosive propellants used in the airbags.
What’s worse, TK Holdings failed to keep proper quality control records, making it difficult to identify which vehicles carried the faulty airbags.
The affected automotive manufacturers include BMW, Ford, GM, Honda, Tesla, Toyota and nearly a dozen others.
According to the NHTSA, as of May 20, 2016, approximately 8 million air bags had been repaired. Since the recall is still ongoing, its cost is difficult to quantify, but it has been estimated to be in excess of $11 billion.
A forward-looking report by the Independent Takata Quality Assurance Panel offered a number of suggestions for improving the company’s quality standards, including increasing and standardizing automation operations across Takata facilities and involving manufacturing earlier in the design process.
Though these are certainly laudable goals, the sheer scope of the Takata Airbag recall could mean that they’re too little, too late.
Recalls in Manufacturing
No one wants a recall to happen—not consumers and certainly not manufacturers. However, when it does occur, the recall itself is for a good reason.
Moreover, paying attention to the causes and effects of recalls can help manufacturers avoid becoming the subject of future quality horror stories.
Do you have a quality horror story? Share it in the comments below.