HOW TO EVALUATE THE QUALITY OF INSPECTION![]()
![]()
It is difficult to evaluate the
quality of inspection service objectively, some experts did establish one basic
evaluation model based on psychology and behavior which named 5 GAP model
including “The Knowledge Gap”, “The standards Gap”, “The Delivery Gap”, “The
Communications Gap”, “The Feeling Gap”. The service quality is assessed by
examining the cognitive gap between the company, the inspector and the owner.
Gap 1 is essentially measured as
the difference in actual customer expectations and perception of managers about
customer expectations.
Inspection company is not able to
understand the demand of principal definitely accurate and correct, then how to
evaluate the quality of service inspection by the principal? What kind of service
can meet the demand of the principal and what level of inspection service being
provided can make the principal feel the high quality of service? Let’s see one
example, inspector's background information including title, professional,
qualifications, certificates, etc. had been already provided by inspection
company, but principal may care more on whether inspector can stick on-site, or
whether his attitude is serious, or whether he is performing his duty. There is
sometimes that principal would flight check without notify to check inspector
assigned by inspection company whether he does perform his duty, this activity
from the principal is in fact based on distrust on inspection company. If the
findings do not match expectations from the principal and/or the company's
commitment, it will lead to poor evaluation of service quality.
Gap 2 is measured as the distance
between the perception of management of organization and service standards
according to customer experience.
The inspection company may not establish a quality standard and quality system in a match with the expectation of principal because of limit resources and market condition, or even having established, but not implement fully, or the problem appeared do expose lack of effective control, correct and Improvement which make one gap that quality system of service from inspection company is not able to meet customer’s expectation or even exceed it.
Gap 3 is defined as the
difference between experience specification and the actual delivery of
experience to the customer.
Because of the inspector’s different
capability and performance such as lack of training, lower remuneration,
sinking morale, poorly equipped, etc., together with the interference of
principal or factories, it will make the whole process of inspection service to
be influenced by a lot of uncertain negative factors which lead to the product
not meet the requirement of quality standards. In practice, it will be
shown that PIM is not held or even held but the quality is not high which
lead to that the necessary technical information is not transmitted
successfully.
Gap 4 is signified as the
difference between the actual delivery of experience to customers and the
communication with customers.
The relationship between the
commitment and the actual service provided is influenced by each other through
communication, much higher your commitment will lead to higher expectation from
customer, if it is not fulfilled it may have the gap. For example, if you
confirmed to provide the inspector as register equipment inspector with NDT
certificate level II, but in fact, the attending inspector is only normal
inspector, then it results in the gap.
Gap 5 is referred to as the gap
between expected and perceived quality of service.
When the quality of service perceived
by the customer is shown beyond the expectation, the quality of service is considered good, but on the contrary, it will be poor. So the judgment on service
quality is relying on how big of the extent of service quality beyond the
expectation. For example, if a customer is professional in the inspection
business, then the service provided shall have considerable quality, otherwise, it will be very difficult to make him satisfied; if a customer is a beginner, the service provided shall improve process gradually to guide his expectation.
Heading for a change: When the oil is no longer in demand
The world is drowning in oil. But there is a growing belief that change is in the pipeline. In fact, research by McKinsey, a consultancy, and the World Economic Forum has identified three game-changers for companies and policymakers within the industry. New energy sources, the likely growth of electric vehicles (EVs) and industry fragmentation are the main elements breaking the habit for oil companies.
Heading for a change: When the oil is no longer in demand
The world is drowning in oil. But there is a growing belief that change is in the pipeline. In fact, research by McKinsey, a consultancy, and the World Economic Forum has identified three game-changers for companies and policymakers within the industry. New energy sources, the likely growth of electric vehicles (EVs) and industry fragmentation are the main elements breaking the habit for oil companies.
1. New energy
sources
First, the bad
news. Even if Exxon Mobil, the world’s biggest publicly traded oil Company,
argues that fossil fuels will still account for three-quarters of primary
energy demand even in 2040, the World Economic Forum forecasts that within two
decades, as many as 20 new energy sources could be powering the global economy,
including fuel cells, modular nuclear fission reactors, and even nuclear
fusion.
Let the sunshine in
In 2015 China
transcended Germany to become the biggest producer of solar energy. And, the
country’s investment into a 10 square miles solar plant in the Gobi desert will
ensure power supply to a million homes. India is determined to keep up. The Indian government is aiming a 20-fold increase in solar-power capacity by 2022,
to 100GW, according to The Economist. Though this might sound pompous, KPMG, a
consultancy, expects the solar share of India’s energy mix to rise to 12.5% by
2025. KPMG further argues that solar in India will be cheaper than coal by
2020.
2. Growth of
electric vehicles (EVs)
Electric cars are
set for rapid adoption. Improved technology and tightening regulation on
missions from ICEs is about to propel electric vehicles (EVs) from a niche to
the mainstream, argues, The Economist. Still, the route from petrol power to
volts looks bumpy. Only one car in a hundred sold today is powered by
electricity. And, the proportion of EVs on the world’s roads is still well
below 1%, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA). Estimates from
Morgan Stanley, a bank, tell us that by 2024 EV sales will hit 7m a year and makeup 7% of vehicles on the road. Are oil companies
moving along? In theory, the growth of electric cars reduces the growth in oil
demand. But, the effect is much smaller, says BP. It further argues that 100
million increase in electric cars reduces oil demand growth by 1.2Mb/d. The
IEA, in its ‘450 scenarios’, assumes 450 million electric vehicles will be on
the roads by 2035. Even so, growth in oil demand would be almost 5Mb/d lower
relative to the case in which electric vehicles didn’t grow at all, continues
BP. Overall, the increase in demand for EVs in the developed world will be
overshadowed by the growing needs of the middle class in emerging economies and
their ever-expanding industries.
The world is
drowning in oil. But there is a growing belief that change is in the pipeline.
In fact, research by McKinsey, a consultancy, and the World Economic Forum has
identified three game-changers for companies and policymakers within the
industry. New energy sources, the likely growth of electric vehicles (EVs) and
industry fragmentation are the main elements breaking the habit for oil
companies.
3. Energy system
fragmentation
The energy
domination of the few is approaching a tipping point, argues McKinsey. The
danger is not an imminent collapse in demand but the start of an unpredictable
interplay of a far greater variety of smaller and more agile participants,
including residential and industrial energy prosumers”, a term coined by the
World Economic Forum. The soar in participants will pressurize the industry,
making it harder to foresee market trends. Mega-projects or investments in
assets that must be productive for three decades or more will seem rather
risky. As a consequence, companies will need to make smaller investments and
rapidly adjust their strategies based on ever-changing market circumstances.
They must learn how to be shapers, argues McKinsey.
Twilight of the oil
age:
As the world enters
what could be the twilight of the oil age, some wonder what are the steps to
follow. Oil companies will have to explore new lines of business. Biofuels
might be a way to diversity. Shell, the Dutch oil company, has set an example
of what oil companies might do in the future. In Thailand, for instance, Shell
is turning locally-grown palm oil into biofuels to increase energy from
renewable sources as part of a 10-year government plan. One thing is certain:
the world’s thirst for oil could be nearing a peak. The future of energy supply
will no longer depend on access to oil, gas or coal reserves, but on
technologies that harness resources such as wind, sun, water or heat.
TECHNICAL TALK ON INNOVATIVE INSPECTION USING NDT TECHNIQUES – INDIAN INSTITUTE OF NON- DESTRUCTIVE TESTING, CHENNAI CHAPTER