I believe the people who see quality as a burden are the optimistic thinkers. They are the people who believe ‘it would never happen to me’.  This means they see quality as an unnecessary step to prevent a situation that in their eyes, will never happen. Versus the people who see quality as a safe guard guard to protect themselves from an unforseable expensive mistake in the future. I see the point of view from the person who sees quality as a burden because I Am also an optimist who does foresee bad things happening. While on the other, I understand the view point of the person who thinks quality is necessary because I know things do not go as planned and it is better to protect yourself, than hope for the better.

I think I agree with that the QA/QC department seems to be a burden.I think that because during the training of the SOPs in the manufacturing process as well as in the QC department, the scientists or associates don't understand what is happening. Moreover, there should be common sense in their teaching not just following SOPs and expects someone to follow it by heart without making some minor deviations. Moreover, QA/QC department should exist to prevent any complications of lot from happening.

Hello,

The cost of quality is indeed a critical perspective that highlights the long-term benefits of investing in quality assurance and control. Your scenario illustrates this point perfectly. Without QA/QC measures in place, a company might appear to save money in the short term, but the potential consequences can be catastrophic. Complaints about the burden of quality often stem from a narrow focus on immediate costs rather than a comprehensive understanding of the bigger picture. Quality initiatives do require an initial investment, such as hiring quality engineers, documentation, and approval processes, which can seem like an added expense. However, these investments are, in essence, insurance policies against future disasters. When individuals or companies view quality as a burden, they might not fully appreciate the value it brings in terms of brand reputation, customer trust, and legal protection. It's crucial to emphasize that the true cost of quality includes not just the expenses incurred but also the potential costs of product recalls, lawsuits, damage to reputation, and, in the worst cases, business closure.

Like most commenters, I understand that quality control is sometimes a burden due to the fact that it is a very lengthy process involving inspections, measurements, purchasing controls;etc. to ensure the product is safe.However, it is very important that a company that is relatively large should have a quality control department and QA/QC should be done for each product. The quality control team is very necessary for many reasons, such as helping and making sure it meets any requirements the FDA may have for any product, making sure the product has proper labeling, etc. so that the product is as safe as possible. for the customer. This way, the probability of the company being sued because a product has endangered a customer's life is minimal, as well as fines from the FDA for not meeting their requirements.