“What do you mean you are stopping the QC inspections?” I could not believe what the operations manager was telling me when it was decided that we would no longer have each truss inspected at completion.
Our truss company had always prided itself on delivering the highest quality trusses in our market. We used top-notch materials, were renowned for tackling the most complex roof designs (even before 3D truss layout software became commonplace), and rarely encountered quality issues on job sites.
Before QC programs became mandatory in Canada and the U.S., we’d experienced a few near-misses in production. In response, the owner implemented a rigorous inspection process: every single truss run had to be fully inspected before the first truss of the run was pressed. For our medium-sized plant, this meant a full-time QC inspector on each shift, with production managers often jumping in to keep things moving. The rule was crystal clear – no truss left without a complete inspection.
Initially, this approach significantly improved our site-ready quality. But over time, an unexpected problem emerged. Our builders were growing complacent. Why worry about plate placement or lumber grade when an inspector would catch any issues? What was once a quality boost had morphed into a productivity killer and, ironically, was breeding a culture of carelessness.
The operations manager’s solution was bold. He eliminated full-time inspectors and instead placed the responsibility squarely on the build crews. They would be accountable for their own quality control. Random spot checks – at least two per setup per shift – would keep everyone alert. The message was unambiguous: take pride in your work and maintain high standards.
The results were remarkable. The build crews responded with renewed enthusiasm, reclaiming their commitment to craftsmanship. (This approach aligns closely with current QC inspection guidelines from TPI/SBCA and TPIC/CWTA.)
The design department faced similar challenges. Every job’s design book underwent exhaustive review, checking for geometric and engineering accuracy. But this came at a cost. Senior designers spent more time checking others’ work than completing their own designs. Morale plummeted, and careless errors became frustratingly common – wrong pitches, incorrect overhangs, you name it.
We implemented a parallel approach in the design department. Each designer became fully accountable for their work’s accuracy. If production or site problems arose from poor workmanship, it would reflect directly on them. We encouraged collaboration – designers were encouraged to seek help from peers or management. New team members had their work regularly checked until they proved their independence.
The outcome? Design throughput jumped. Mistake rates didn’t increase, and – most importantly – the design team’s job satisfaction improved dramatically.
My key takeaway? Sometimes solving a problem isn’t about adding more layers of complexity. It’s about stepping back, understanding the root cause, and setting clear expectations. We need to provide support, offer training, and hold people accountable. When team members feel trusted and empowered, they rise to the challenge.
I am genuinely curious – how does your organization handle quality control? Drop me a line and share your experiences.