Quality Assurance (QA) and Quality Control (QC) programs are only effective if they’re enforced consistently. One lapse, especially on a critical project, can result in rework, rejected shipments, and brand erosion. This blog examines an incident where minor QA/QC oversights led to a major operational failure.
The Incident: Surface Defects Found on Coated Glass Panels
A Canadian distributor supplied low-E coated IGUs for a regional hospital expansion. After installation of the first 50 panels, the contractor flagged surface inconsistencies under natural light. Further inspection revealed micro-abrasions in the coating, most likely caused by poor protective separation during shipping.
The panels had passed internal visual inspection under fluorescent lighting, but no daylight simulation or coated surface testing was included in the QA process.
Oversights Identified
No test for visible coating distortion under real-world light conditions
Shipping team used non-approved separators between panels
QA relied on vendor-supplied inspection results without cross-checking
The Damage
70% of delivered panels had to be replaced
Project was delayed by three weeks
The client implemented a third-party inspection requirement on future orders
Corrective Actions
Real-World Visual Testing Protocol Enforced
All coated products are now reviewed under daylight-simulating conditions prior to shipment.
Shipping Material Guidelines Standardized
Only verified separators and packing methods are used for coated surfaces.
Vendor QA Data Audited Quarterly
QA documents from suppliers are no longer accepted without random verification.
Lesson for Distributors
QA/QC failures rarely come from equipment—they come from assumption. A flawless product still fails if the inspection process doesn’t reflect real-world application.
