BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
PRODID:-//MP-IDSA - ECPv6.15.12.2//NONSGML v1.0//EN
CALSCALE:GREGORIAN
METHOD:PUBLISH
X-ORIGINAL-URL:https://idsa.in
X-WR-CALDESC:Events for MP-IDSA
REFRESH-INTERVAL;VALUE=DURATION:PT1H
X-Robots-Tag:noindex
X-PUBLISHED-TTL:PT1H
BEGIN:VTIMEZONE
TZID:Asia/Kolkata
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:+0530
TZOFFSETTO:+0530
TZNAME:IST
DTSTART:20110101T000000
END:STANDARD
END:VTIMEZONE
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20121207T053000
DTEND;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20121207T053000
DTSTAMP:20261104T183109
CREATED:20231223T134008Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20231224T130241Z
UID:63145-1354858200-1354858200@idsa.in
SUMMARY:Effectiveness of Quality Assurance (QA) in  Army Procurements
DESCRIPTION:Chairperson: Brig Rumel Dahiya (Retd)External Discussants:  Lt Col Sanjay Pande\, Lt Col VS Raghuvanshi and Col OP SinghInternal Discussant: Col Venu Gopal \nMajor Highlights of the Paper: \nThis is second paper of a research project entitled “Synergising QA for Speedy Defence Procurement and Ensuring Quality.” The first paper studied various aspects of quality assurance (QA) in army procurements\, from a point of view of efficiency. The current paper critically analyses the effectiveness of the QA in Army procurements and looks at the ways in which the failure data collected from the defects reported on newly acquired equipment during their warranty period can be used to strengthen the Quality of QA.  \nThe difficult and inhospitable terrains (from Thar to Siachen\, the variation in temperature is more than 100 degrees) in which the Indian Army has to operate warrants that the soldier and equipment both have to be rugged enough to bear this variation in terrain and climate. One such instance of terrain difficulty was the high failure rates of INSAS (Indian Small Arms System) at Kargil\, where the rifle encountered some reliability problems in the very cold climate. The paper therefore stresses the imperative that the equipment in the hands of soldiers must be of superb quality and ought to have a high in-built reliability\, in addition to being rugged. The QA of the equipment must therefore be focused to ensure these aspects.  \nDelving on the effectiveness or lack thereof of QA\, the paper says that an effective QA of equipment will ensure that the equipments perform their intended function under given operating conditions\, repeatedly\, with the optimum maintenance when operated in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions. Effective QA in turn ensures that there are no or negligible complaints against the product that has been quality-assured. An ineffective QA on the other hand is evident from the numerous complaints of product failure\, especially during its warranty period and for reasons attributable to the design\, material and production process\, once the product is put into service. \nThe basic argument in the paper is that the well established system of defect reporting\, which happens to be the most important feedback from the user\, is not being fully exploited to trace back the causes that lead to occurrence of defects in field. A detailed analysis of the contemporary defect reporting practice and what ails it has been carried out. Some of the major findings of the study are: \n\nThough the time lines for defect reporting and  investigation are clearly laid down\, they are seldom followed. Investigation  and closure of many defects takes more than six months and in quite a few cases  more than a year. Keeping defective equipment for such long duration without  preservation causes further deterioration and also deprives the user of the  services of that equipment. \nThe user feels maximum pinch if only one number of  that type of equipment is authorised to them on which the defect report is  initiated. For instance\, if only one generating set is authorised to a minor  unit deployed in an operational area\, and that remains unavailable to them for  want of a defect investigation for a year\, the unit is condemned to live  without electricity for that duration\, unless it borrows one from some other  unit.\nMany times the officers commanding workshops are  under tremendous pressure to improve equipment availability\, which discourages  them from reporting certain defects\, and instead carry out repairs of the  defective equipment and put them back into service. Thus many defects go  unreported\, leading to a distortion in the feedback data on QA through defect  reporting.\nIn case of equipment not being under warranty  period\, there is a tendency to avoid defect reporting.\nMultiplicity of agencies involved in the QA process  makes coordination difficult\, leading to poor QA at times. \nQA of  products offered by Ordnance Factories and Defence Public Sector Undertakings  need a complete revamp. \n\nTo improve effectiveness of QA in Army procurements\, the paper makes following important recommendations: \n\nDGQA must constantly strive to improve the       quality or effectiveness of the QA it does on the equipment procured\, by       making corrections in their QA tools on the basis of dual input i.e.       feedback from the field Army in the form of Defect Reports (DRs)\, as well       as from expert judgement.\nThe Officers and staff of DGQA undergoing       various courses at Defence Institute of Quality assurance (DIQA) can be       given projects on individual cases as part of their course curriculum. \nIt is imperative to maintain a database of DRs       at AsHSP or technical directorates in a suitable form and regularly update       them. \nIt is necessary that the users (field Army)       report the defects meticulously. \n\nThe paper concludes by saying that in order to ensure that for the Indian Army to perform its operational tasks efficiently and effectively\, it is necessary that only high quality and reliable equipment and weapon system are provisioned. QA organisation responsible for ensuring quality and reliability of these equipment and weapon systems therefore needs to be empowered by the Department of Defence Production. The organisation too\, needs to empower itself internally by continuously improving its ability and upgrading its skills. Creation of a Quality Assurance Information System (QAIS) based on the suggested model\, wherein feedback from users is analysed to identify the root cause of the problems and their application to relevant activity of QA\, coupled with expert judgement in the form of internal and external audit of the quality of QA\, would prevent stagnation of these activities and result in a dynamically improving and evolving effectiveness of the organisation\, which is highly desirable at the moment.  \nMajor Points of discussion and Suggestions to the Author:\n\nThere is involvement of multiple agencies in  the QA process from DRDO to DGQA. Synergisation of efforts therefore becomes  necessary in order to achieve desired results.\nQuality starts from raw material stage\,  whereas the quality check commences at a much advanced stage of weapon  development. This gap sometimes leads to poor quality weapons getting quality  clearance.\nThe failure or defect reporting system has  its own problems\, which results in less number of defect reports. Online  filling of DRs should be permitted to expedite the reporting process. Moreover\, instead of waiting for the equipment  to break down\, advance defects report can be sent based on the performance  monitoring of the weapon. It should be ensured that DRs are not confined to  manufacturing defect alone; rather it should also incorporate defects arising  out of poor maintenance. \nSampling procedure of DGQA and QA of items  developed by DRDO can be looked into to suggest measures to plug the gaps in  the system.\nThe real test of the equipment is not in its  survivability during the warranty period\, but through the life-cycle of the weapon\,  as there is less likelihood of the weapon developing problem in its early  years.\nIt is  not possible to check at design stage weapons that are produces abroad\, because  DGQA cannot afford to place its staff for the entire duration of designing\,  which is usually very long. \nA comparative study of QA process in some  advanced countries should be undertaken to learn the best practices in QA.\nThere  are 16 functions of DGQA in its Charter of duties. But there is a question mark  whether the DGQA is adequately staffed to perform these duties.  \n\nReport prepared by Amit Kumar\, RA\, IDSA
URL:https://idsa.in/idsa-event/effectiveness-of-quality-assurance-qa-in-army-procurements
CATEGORIES:FELLOW'S SEMINAR,EVENT REPORT
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://idsa.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/no_photo-200x150-2.jpg
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR