[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":71},["ShallowReactive",2],{"legacy:insights\u002Fcopq-four-categories:en":3},{"id":4,"title":5,"description":6,"keywords":7,"author":8,"robots":9,"bodyClass":10,"image":11,"jsonld":12,"html":70},"insights\u002Fcopq-four-categories","Who Is the Cost-of-Quality Report For: Making COPQ's Four Categories Work - JEDP Digital Platform","质量成本怎么算才有人信。COPQ 分预防、鉴定、内部失败、外部失败四类，难点不在分类而在取数：报废与赔款看得见，返工工时、停机待判、复检与差旅常被漏掉。本文给出四类归集口径、科目表设计、分摊规则、三层看板与六项可演示的验收。","质量成本,COPQ,劣质质量成本,预防成本,鉴定成本,内部失败成本,外部失败成本","Shenzhen Langbowan Information Technology Co., Ltd.","index, follow","page-insights","https:\u002F\u002Fwww.jedp.cn\u002Fres\u002Fimages\u002Fproduct\u002Fplatform-overview.webp",[13,30,44],{"@context":14,"@type":15,"@id":16,"headline":17,"description":6,"inLanguage":18,"datePublished":19,"dateModified":19,"articleSection":20,"keywords":21,"image":11,"author":22,"publisher":24,"isPartOf":25,"mainEntityOfPage":27},"https:\u002F\u002Fschema.org","Article","https:\u002F\u002Fwww.jedp.cn\u002Finsights\u002Fcopq-four-categories#article","Who Is the Cost-of-Quality Report For: Making COPQ's Four Categories Work","zh-CN","2026-10-31","QMS · Quality","质量成本, COPQ, 劣质质量成本, 预防成本, 鉴定成本, 内部失败成本, 外部失败成本",{"@id":23},"https:\u002F\u002Fwww.jedp.cn\u002F#organization",{"@id":23},{"@id":26},"https:\u002F\u002Fwww.jedp.cn\u002Finsights#collection",{"@type":28,"@id":29},"WebPage","https:\u002F\u002Fwww.jedp.cn\u002Finsights\u002Fcopq-four-categories",{"@context":14,"@type":31,"itemListElement":32},"BreadcrumbList",[33,38,42],{"@type":34,"position":35,"name":36,"item":37},"ListItem",1,"Home","https:\u002F\u002Fwww.jedp.cn\u002F",{"@type":34,"position":39,"name":40,"item":41},2,"Insights","https:\u002F\u002Fwww.jedp.cn\u002Finsights",{"@type":34,"position":43,"name":17,"item":29},3,{"@context":14,"@type":45,"@id":46,"mainEntity":47},"FAQPage","https:\u002F\u002Fwww.jedp.cn\u002Finsights\u002Fcopq-four-categories#faq",[48,54,58,62,66],{"@type":49,"name":50,"acceptedAnswer":51},"Question","Should prevention cost include training fees?",{"@type":52,"text":53},"Answer","Yes, but the scope must be fixed: only training directly related to quality counts, including work standards, inspection methods, gauge use and internal auditor training. General management, safety and onboarding training do not count, otherwise the number gets challenged as padding. Write the basis into the account table and apply the same basis every period.",{"@type":49,"name":55,"acceptedAnswer":56},"Customer compensation is booked as a sales expense — does it still count as external failure?",{"@type":52,"text":57},"Yes. The test is whether the money was spent because quality was nonconforming, not which accounting head it sits under. The method is to build a mapping in the account table: finance keeps booking as before, cost of quality collects by the mapping rule, and nothing is counted twice.",{"@type":49,"name":59,"acceptedAnswer":60},"Should rework hours use standard hours or actual hours?",{"@type":52,"text":61},"Use actual hours. Standard hours systematically understate internal failure cost, because rework is usually done by skilled workers working faster than the standard. Where actual hours are unavailable, convert from the actual start and end times on the rework order and mark that portion as converted on the report.",{"@type":49,"name":63,"acceptedAnswer":64},"Should cost of quality be counted monthly or by batch?",{"@type":52,"text":65},"You need both, for different purposes. Monthly shows trend and the shift in the four-category mix, used to judge whether investment should change; by batch shows the loss on a single batch, used for quoting and improvement priority. Do only one and the other class of problem stays invisible.",{"@type":49,"name":67,"acceptedAnswer":68},"Should the result be tied to performance right away?",{"@type":52,"text":69},"Not at first. Once it is tied to performance the data gets massaged, and the first year's job is to stabilise the basis and make the numbers reproducible. Wait until the basis has held unchanged for two consecutive quarters and the total can be drilled to individual documents before tying it to performance or improvement projects.","\u003Carticle class=\"insight-article\">\n    \u003Cdiv class=\"insight-container\">\n      \u003Cnav class=\"breadcrumb\" aria-label=\"Breadcrumb\">\n        \u003Ca href=\"\u002F\">Home\u003C\u002Fa>\n        \u003Cspan class=\"breadcrumb-sep\">\u002F\u003C\u002Fspan>\n        \u003Ca href=\"\u002Finsights\">Insights\u003C\u002Fa>\n        \u003Cspan class=\"breadcrumb-sep\">\u002F\u003C\u002Fspan>\n        \u003Cspan>QMS · Quality\u003C\u002Fspan>\n      \u003C\u002Fnav>\n\n      \u003Cheader class=\"insight-hero\">\n        \u003Cdiv class=\"insight-tags\">\u003Cspan class=\"r-tag\">Cost of quality\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003Cspan class=\"r-tag\">COPQ\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003Cspan class=\"r-tag\">Quality reporting\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fdiv>\n        \u003Ch1>Who Is the Cost-of-Quality Report For: Making COPQ's Four Categories Work\u003C\u002Fh1>\n        \u003Cp class=\"insight-lede\">At the annual business review, quality reports the year's quality losses, and the general manager looks up and asks, 'That is all?' — because the sheet carries only two lines: scrap value and customer compensation. Rework hours, downtime awaiting disposition, repeated inspection and the travel spent handling complaints are not in there at all. Cost of quality loses credibility not because it is calculated wrong, but because too much is left out.\u003C\u002Fp>\n        \u003Cdiv class=\"insight-meta\">\n          \u003Cspan>Updated 2026-10-31\u003C\u002Fspan>\n          \u003Cspan class=\"dot\" aria-hidden=\"true\">\u003C\u002Fspan>\n          \u003Cspan>~10 min read\u003C\u002Fspan>\n          \u003Cspan class=\"dot\" aria-hidden=\"true\">\u003C\u002Fspan>\n          \u003Cspan>Manufacturing digitalization · QMS · Quality\u003C\u002Fspan>\n        \u003C\u002Fdiv>\n      \u003C\u002Fheader>\n      \u003Csection class=\"insight-takeaways\">\n        \u003Ch2>What you'll take away\u003C\u002Fh2>\n        \u003Cul>\u003Cli>COPQ is a ledger for decision-makers, not an accounting head: the four-way split (prevention, appraisal, internal failure, external failure) answers where the money goes and whether it is worth it\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>The difficulty is not the categories but the data: scrap and compensation have documents, while rework hours, downtime awaiting disposition, re-inspection and travel usually have no entry point\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>The collection basis and data source for each of the four categories, plus an account table you can copy directly\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>Do not allocate with one blunt rule: output value, hours and batch each have their fit, and the wrong choice sends improvement the wrong way\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>Three dashboards, each with a job: the workshop watches the shift, quality watches structure and trend, management watches input versus output\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>Six demonstrable acceptance checks — if they cannot be shown, it is still at the Excel stage\u003C\u002Fli>\u003C\u002Ful>\n      \u003C\u002Fsection>\n\n      \u003Cdiv class=\"insight-layout\">\n        \u003Cdiv class=\"insight-body\">\n\u003Ch2 id=\"一版没人信的质量成本\">A cost-of-quality version nobody believes\u003C\u002Fh2>\n\u003Cp>Start with a real case. An automotive parts maker's quality department did its first cost-of-quality count by asking finance for the year's scrap value and sales for the total of customer claims, then adding the two. The number was small, and management's first reaction was that their quality must be fine.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cp>Yet in that same year, the two things that bothered the workshop manager most were: one operation needing rework constantly, with skilled workers pulled off to fix parts every day; and the rush to tidy records before every customer audit. Both cost money and both consume people, and neither landed on that sheet.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cp>The problem is the basis, not the attitude. The standard split of cost of quality is four categories —\u003Cstrong>prevention cost, appraisal cost, internal failure cost, external failure cost\u003C\u002Fstrong>, collectively called the COPQ (Cost of Poor Quality) framework. Money in the first two is spent before defects occur, in the last two after. Counting only the two easiest items inside the failure categories turns cost of quality into nothing more than a scrap ledger, and every judgment management makes from it is distorted.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cp>The more practical consequence is that investment goes the wrong way. Of the four categories, what actually brings the total down is usually moving money to the prevention side — error-proofing, process changes, moving inspection upstream. But if prevention cost has never been counted, that spend is pure cost on the report, and whoever raises it looks like they are asking for budget.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Ch2 id=\"四类构成的账-难在取数不在分类\">The four-category ledger: the difficulty is data, not classification\u003C\u002Fh2>\n\u003Cp>The four definitions are not hard; what is hard is that each category has items where you can see money going out but cannot find the document. The table below lists what is most often missed in practice.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cdiv class=\"table-scroll\">\u003Ctable>\u003Cthead>\u003Ctr>\u003Cth>Category\u003C\u002Fth>\u003Cth>Easy to get figures for\u003C\u002Fth>\u003Cth>Most often omitted\u003C\u002Fth>\u003Cth>Why it is missed\u003C\u002Fth>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003C\u002Fthead>\u003Ctbody>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd>Prevention cost\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Training fees, certification fees\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Error-proofing devices, process validation\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Booked under equipment or project\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd>Appraisal cost\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Testing equipment depreciation\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Inspector hours, re-inspection\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Labour not split by inspection\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd>Internal failure\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Scrap value\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Rework hours, downtime awaiting disposition\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>No rework order or state machine\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd>External failure\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Customer compensation\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Travel, sorting, expedited freight\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Scattered in expense claims\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003C\u002Ftbody>\u003C\u002Ftable>\u003C\u002Fdiv>\n\u003Cp>The omitted items share one trait: unlike scrap, they have no standalone document, but sit inside wages, hours, travel and freight. Getting them out requires splitting after the fact, and splitting requires rules — which is exactly what the account table is for.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cp>One more type is more hidden:\u003Cstrong>Price difference from downgrade and concession\u003C\u002Fstrong>. Selling a nonconforming part as second-grade is a real quality loss, but because the money was received, it never appears in most counts.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Ch2 id=\"先定性-这是决策账-不是财务科目\">First, fix the nature: this is a decision ledger, not an accounting head\u003C\u002Fh2>\n\u003Cp>Agree on one thing before starting: COPQ is not an accounting head, and it does not have to map one-to-one onto finance accounts. It has exactly one purpose —\u003Cstrong>answering whether the money spent on quality is worth it, and where it should move\u003C\u002Fstrong>. So the design principles are: a stable basis, drill-down capable, comparable across periods.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cdiv class=\"table-scroll\">\u003Ctable>\u003Cthead>\u003Ctr>\u003Cth>Category\u003C\u002Fth>\u003Cth>Definition\u003C\u002Fth>\u003Cth>Typical content\u003C\u002Fth>\u003Cth>Allocation direction\u003C\u002Fth>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003C\u002Fthead>\u003Ctbody>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd>Prevention cost\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>To keep defects from occurring\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Training, error-proofing, review\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Active spend, watch the trend\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd>Appraisal cost\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>To find defects\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Inspection, calibration, testing\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Active spend, watch efficiency\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd>Internal failure\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Defects before shipment\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Scrap, rework, downtime\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Loss, watch it fall\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd>External failure\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Defects after shipment\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Returns, claims, recalls\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Loss, watch it reach zero\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003C\u002Ftbody>\u003C\u002Ftable>\u003C\u002Fdiv>\n\u003Cp>The only test is\u003Cstrong>Why this money was spent\u003C\u002Fstrong>: spent to keep defects from happening, that is prevention; spent to find defects, that is appraisal; the defect has occurred and is still inside the plant, that is internal failure; it reached the customer, that is external failure. Under this rule there is no ambiguity about which category a sum belongs to.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cp>Ambiguity usually shows up at two boundaries. First,\u003Cstrong>Inspector hours\u003C\u002Fstrong>: routine first-piece and patrol inspection is appraisal, while sorting and full inspection added because of a complaint is external failure — the same inspection hours, a different trigger, a different category. Second,\u003Cstrong>Gauge calibration\u003C\u002Fstrong>: planned calibration is appraisal, while the re-inspection triggered by a gauge found out of calibration is internal failure.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cp>The rule for handling boundaries is simple: collect by\u003Cstrong>Triggering document\u003C\u002Fstrong>Collect by triggering document: inspection plan triggered goes to appraisal; complaint ticket or NCR triggered goes to the failure categories. That way every sum traces to a document, and arguments land on documents instead of estimates.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Ch2 id=\"四类各自的归集口径\">Collection basis for each of the four categories\u003C\u002Fh2>\n\u003Cp>The basis has to land on the account table, and each line states three things: what to include, what to exclude, where the figure comes from. The table below can be used as a first version directly.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cdiv class=\"table-scroll\">\u003Ctable>\u003Cthead>\u003Ctr>\u003Cth>Second-level account\u003C\u002Fth>\u003Cth>What to include\u003C\u002Fth>\u003Cth>What not to include\u003C\u002Fth>\u003Cth>Data source\u003C\u002Fth>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003C\u002Fthead>\u003Ctbody>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd>Quality training\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Standards, inspection, gauges\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>General management and safety\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Training records\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd>Error-proofing and process\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Error-proofing devices, process validation\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Capacity expansion retrofits\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Change and acceptance documents\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd>Incoming and in-process inspection\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Inspector hours and consumables\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Operator self-inspection hours\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Inspection records\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd>Equipment calibration\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Planned calibration and verification\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Re-inspection after out-of-calibration\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Gauge ledger\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd>Scrap loss\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Net value of material and process scrap\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Trial run and sample scrap\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Scrap form\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd>Rework and repair\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Actual rework hours and material\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Planned rework\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Rework order\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd>Downtime awaiting disposition\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Line loss during the hold period\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Scheduled maintenance downtime\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Nonconformance report\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd>Downgrade and concession\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Downgrade sales price difference\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Normal grade price difference\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Concession record\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd>Complaint handling\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Travel, sorting, expedited freight\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Routine after-sales service\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Complaint ticket\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd>Claims and recalls\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Compensation, returns, recalls\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Commercial discount\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Claim form\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003C\u002Ftbody>\u003C\u002Ftable>\u003C\u002Fdiv>\n\u003Cp>The 'what not to include' column is the one most often dropped, and the most critical. Without exclusions the accounts keep inflating — safety training invoices and capacity expansion equipment get pushed in, and the total looks good but nobody decides anything with it.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cp>The source column must state\u003Cstrong>Single source document\u003C\u002Fstrong>. If the same money has two sources (it is in the finance ledger and also in the inspection record), one must be designated authoritative and the other used only for cross-checking. Dual sourcing always yields two numbers, and two numbers means no number.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Ch2 id=\"最容易算错的三处\">Three places most often miscounted\u003C\u002Fh2>\n\u003Cp>First,\u003Cstrong>Scrap only\u003C\u002Fstrong>. This is the omission from the previous section and the most common shape it takes. The test: divide the total by output and see whether per-unit quality loss is implausibly low; if it is too low to cover even one customer return, it is probably scrap only.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cp>Second,\u003Cstrong>Rework hours counted at standard hours\u003C\u002Fstrong>. Standard hours systematically understate internal failure, because rework usually goes to skilled workers whose actual time is below standard, so pricing at standard overstates it; on the other hand, rework brings waiting and setup, so actual occupancy runs above pure operation time. The bias cuts both ways, and the only stable approach is to take the actual start and end times on the rework order.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cp>Third,\u003Cstrong>External failure counts compensation only\u003C\u002Fstrong>. After a customer complains, the real money often is not the compensation itself: travel to sort parts on site, expedited freight to ship replacements, third-party re-inspection the customer demands — together these regularly exceed the compensation. That money sits in expense claims, and without a complaint number on the claim it can never be allocated — which is why\u003Cstrong>The expense claim must carry a complaint number field\u003C\u002Fstrong>, and that is the watershed for whether the total can be complete.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Ch2 id=\"科目表怎么定-责任要落到人\">Designing the account table: responsibility must land on a person\u003C\u002Fh2>\n\u003Cp>The account table is not quality's alone. For every one of the four categories the figures sit with another department, and the responsibility belongs in the table.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cdiv class=\"table-scroll\">\u003Ctable>\u003Cthead>\u003Ctr>\u003Cth>Step\u003C\u002Fth>\u003Cth>Responsible Department\u003C\u002Fth>\u003Cth>Deliverable\u003C\u002Fth>\u003Cth>Time limit\u003C\u002Fth>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003C\u002Fthead>\u003Ctbody>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd>Basis and accounts\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Quality Department\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Account table and exclusions\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Reviewed annually\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd>Hours and output\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Production\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Rework hours and downtime records\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Entered on the shift\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd>Amounts and vouchers\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Finance\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Account mapping and net-amount basis\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>By the third of next month\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd>Complaints and claims\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Sales or customer service\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Complaint ticket and claim amount\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Entered when closed\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd>Roll-up and drill-down\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Quality Department\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Four-category report and exception list\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Once a month\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003C\u002Ftbody>\u003C\u002Ftable>\u003C\u002Fdiv>\n\u003Cp>The 'entered on the shift' cell decides whether the whole thing runs. If rework hours and downtime may be backfilled at month end, the backfilled numbers will be wrong — nobody remembers how long a hold lasted two weeks ago. So the rule is simple: whoever creates it enters it, and it is entered within the shift.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cp>The point of the finance cell is\u003Cstrong>Net-amount basis\u003C\u002Fstrong>: scrap loss takes off residual value, and rework takes off reusable material. Counting gross overstates internal failure, and after a while nobody reads the sheet.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Ch2 id=\"分摊口径-别一刀切\">Allocation basis: no one blunt rule\u003C\u002Fh2>\n\u003Cp>Cost of quality needs allocation because it has to be compared with output value and volume. Pick the wrong allocation basis and the improvement direction drifts.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cdiv class=\"table-scroll\">\u003Ctable>\u003Cthead>\u003Ctr>\u003Cth>criteria\u003C\u002Fth>\u003Cth>Where It Fits\u003C\u002Fth>\u003Cth>Risk\u003C\u002Fth>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003C\u002Fthead>\u003Ctbody>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd>By output value\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Management watches input versus output\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Price swings amplify the distortion\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd>By output volume\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Per-unit loss and quoting\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Mixed-model lines are not comparable\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd>By hours\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Cross-workshop comparison\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Automated lines distort it\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd>By batch\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Single-batch improvement priority\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Small batches look disproportionately costly\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003C\u002Ftbody>\u003C\u002Ftable>\u003C\u002Fdiv>\n\u003Cp>The four bases serve four purposes, and there is no single correct denominator. The standard approach is\u003Cstrong>One primary basis, the others as support\u003C\u002Fstrong>: management reporting fixes the output-value basis, workshop comparison fixes the hours basis, and the batch basis is used only for improvement ranking. Mixing denominators on one sheet is the most common error in cost-of-quality reporting.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cp>One more boundary to state:\u003Cstrong>Lost orders and goodwill are not counted\u003C\u002Fstrong>. They are real, but they cannot be evidenced or recomputed, and estimating them into the total destroys the credibility of the whole sheet. Express that part with countable process metrics such as complaint counts and repeat-complaint rate, not with an estimated amount.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Ch2 id=\"算出来给谁看-三层看板\">Who is the report for: three dashboards\u003C\u002Fh2>\n\u003Cp>The most common failure of a cost-of-quality report is showing everyone the same sheet. A workshop manager cannot read the four-category structure, and the general manager does not care about one team's rework hours. Split it by level, one sheet each.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cdiv class=\"table-scroll\">\u003Ctable>\u003Cthead>\u003Ctr>\u003Cth>Hierarchy\u003C\u002Fth>\u003Cth>What are you looking at?\u003C\u002Fth>\u003Cth>Timeline\u003C\u002Fth>\u003Cth>Purpose\u003C\u002Fth>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003C\u002Fthead>\u003Ctbody>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd>Workshop\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Scrap and rework on the shift\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Daily\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Correct within the day\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd>Quality Department\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Four-category structure and trend\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Monthly\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Set improvement items\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd>Management level\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Share of output value, input versus output\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Quarterly\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Decide resources\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003C\u002Ftbody>\u003C\u002Ftable>\u003C\u002Fdiv>\n\u003Cp>The three levels must share one basis. The scrap total on the workshop sheet must equal the internal-failure scrap line on the quality sheet, and the quality sheet total must equal the management sheet total. When they tie out, the report is trusted; when they do not, every level gets questioned.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cp>What matters at the quality level is\u003Cstrong>Structural change\u003C\u002Fstrong>, not the total. Prevention and appraisal spend rising while failure falls is the healthy direction; all four falling together usually means the counting has loosened, not that quality improved. Put this line in the report notes, or management will see the total drop and assume all is well.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Ch2 id=\"在-jedp-里这套东西落在哪\">Where does this land inside JEDP\u003C\u002Fh2>\n\u003Cp>None of this needs a new system; it lands inside the configuration scope. The account table and the four-category mapping are built with form modelling, second-level accounts are fields, and changing an account needs no code. Rework orders, concession records and complaint tickets run on the flow engine, with time limits on nodes and approvals on record; the document number is what triggers the allocation.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cp>On the data side, the report engine pulls figures against the defined basis: the four categories and the three dashboards share one source, one basis produces three tables. The integration engine brings in amounts from finance and hours from production out of the existing systems, so the same money is never entered twice. The permission engine sets the scope of quality roll-up and drill-down: who sees the whole plant and who sees only their own workshop, with any overreach rejected on the spot.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cp>The link to nonconforming product handling is the key. A hold decision must be able to freeze stock and block the next station, rework and scrap must enter the work order state machine, and complaint claims must reach accounts payable — if any of the three is broken, cost of quality only captures the half that has documents. The related practices are covered in three other articles: NCR raised but goods still moving, rework order open yet progress counted as complete, and claim raised but the debit never lands.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Ch2 id=\"落地顺序-六项验收与先别动的情况\">Rollout sequence, six acceptance checks and cases to leave alone\u003C\u002Fh2>\n\u003Cp>Four steps are recommended, each with a checkable completion marker:\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cdiv class=\"table-scroll\">\u003Ctable>\u003Cthead>\u003Ctr>\u003Cth>Step\u003C\u002Fth>\u003Cth>What are you doing?\u003C\u002Fth>\u003Cth>Completion mark\u003C\u002Fth>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003C\u002Fthead>\u003Ctbody>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd>Step one\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Fix the four-category basis and account table\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Account table with exclusions, confirmed by finance\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd>Step Two\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Connect the three triggering documents\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Rework, concession and complaints can be collected\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd>Step Three\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Produce the four-category report and three dashboards\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Totals at three levels tie out\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd>Step Four\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Add allocation and trend analysis\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Primary basis fixed and traceable\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003C\u002Ftbody>\u003C\u002Ftable>\u003C\u002Fdiv>\n\u003Cp>Do not check the policy document at acceptance; have them demonstrate these six on the spot:\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Col>\u003Cli>Open a rework order and see actual start and end times, hours and material, automatically allocated to internal failure\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>Look up a complaint and see the total of compensation, travel and expedited freight, gathered under that complaint number\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>Click any amount in the four-category structure and drill down to the list of documents, verifiable line by line\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>Take a batch of downgraded sales records and see list price against amount received, with the difference counted into internal failure\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>Switch between workshop and plant-wide views; the data scope follows permissions, and the total ties to the upper-level report\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>Export six consecutive months of four-category data; the change in structure can be charted, and any basis change is marked\u003C\u002Fli>\u003C\u002Fol>\n\u003Cp>Only when all six can be demonstrated has cost of quality entered the system. Any one that cannot be shown is still living in Excel.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cp>Finally, the boundaries. In three situations my advice is not to rush into the full set of statistics:\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cp>First,\u003Cstrong>Cause code can be blank\u003C\u002Fstrong>. A cause code is the only pointer to the improvement direction; leaving it blank means the collected total points at nothing. Make the field mandatory with a dictionary before you talk about statistics.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cp>Second,\u003Cstrong>No document entry point for rework and downtime\u003C\u002Fstrong>. With no entry point it can only be estimated at month end, and the estimate gets torn apart at the first review. Add the documents first, then count.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cp>Third,\u003Cstrong>Tie it to performance before the owner is even assigned\u003C\u002Fstrong>. Once it is tied to performance the data gets massaged, and the direction is usually not better, just smaller. The first year has only two jobs: a stable basis and reproducible numbers.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cp>None of the three is a problem with the four-category split; the split only exposes them faster. Conversely, once those three are settled, a cost-of-quality figure with a stable basis that drills down to documents gives you real decision input: how much to move to the prevention side, which operation to fix first, which class of complaint costs most — the answers stop being guesses.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cul>\u003Cli>QMS quality management: one closed loop across incoming, in-process and complaint handling\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>Report engine: one definition, one source for metrics\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>Process engine: one rule set for approval and business flow\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>Form engine: model, fields and page generation\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>CAPA closure rate nobody believes: define closed as three verifiable conditions\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>Rework order raised yet progress still counts as complete? Scrap and rework must enter the work order state machine\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>Claim raised but the debit never lands? Quality chargebacks must reach accounts payable\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>IQC and supplier quality as two skins—weld the loop at four nodes\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>8D and CAPA process template pack\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>QMS Selection 20-Question Checklist\u003C\u002Fli>\u003C\u002Ful>\n        \u003C\u002Fdiv>\n        \u003Caside class=\"insight-toc\" aria-label=\"On this page\">\n          \u003Ch2>Contents\u003C\u002Fh2>\n          \u003Ca class=\"h2\" href=\"#一版没人信的质量成本\">A cost-of-quality version nobody believes\u003C\u002Fa>\n          \u003Ca class=\"h2\" href=\"#四类构成的账-难在取数不在分类\">The four-category ledger: the difficulty is data, not classification\u003C\u002Fa>\n          \u003Ca class=\"h2\" href=\"#先定性-这是决策账-不是财务科目\">First, fix the nature: this is a decision ledger, not an accounting head\u003C\u002Fa>\n          \u003Ca class=\"h2\" href=\"#四类各自的归集口径\">Collection basis for each of the four categories\u003C\u002Fa>\n          \u003Ca class=\"h2\" href=\"#最容易算错的三处\">Three places most often miscounted\u003C\u002Fa>\n          \u003Ca class=\"h2\" href=\"#科目表怎么定-责任要落到人\">Designing the account table: responsibility must land on a person\u003C\u002Fa>\n          \u003Ca class=\"h2\" href=\"#分摊口径-别一刀切\">Allocation basis: no one blunt rule\u003C\u002Fa>\n          \u003Ca class=\"h2\" href=\"#算出来给谁看-三层看板\">Who is the report for: three dashboards\u003C\u002Fa>\n          \u003Ca class=\"h2\" href=\"#在-jedp-里这套东西落在哪\">Where does this land inside JEDP\u003C\u002Fa>\n          \u003Ca class=\"h2\" href=\"#落地顺序-六项验收与先别动的情况\">Rollout sequence, six acceptance checks and cases to leave alone\u003C\u002Fa>\n        \u003C\u002Faside>\n      \u003C\u002Fdiv>\n      \u003Cdiv class=\"insight-cta\">\n        \u003Cp>\u003Cstrong>Want to apply this in your plant?\u003C\u002Fstrong>Resources has matching self-assessments and templates—or book a live demo.\u003C\u002Fp>\n        \u003Cdiv class=\"insight-cta-actions\">\n          \u003Ca href=\"\u002Fresources?from=copq#selftest\" class=\"btn btn-outline\">Self-assessment in Resources\u003C\u002Fa>\n          \u003Ca href=\"\u002Fcases#case-platform\" class=\"btn btn-outline\">Platform acceptance case\u003C\u002Fa>\n          \u003Ca href=\"\u002Fcontact?from=copq\" class=\"btn\">Get a demo\u003C\u002Fa>\n        \u003C!-- next-step:BEGIN -->\u003Ca class=\"btn\" href=\"\u002Fproduct\u002Fqms\">Product solution: \u003Cspan>QMS Quality Management\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fa>\u003Ca class=\"btn btn-outline\" href=\"\u002Fres\u002Fresources\u002Fkits\u002F04-qms-8d-capa-templates.html\">Matching resource kit: \u003Cspan>8D and CAPA process template pack\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fa>\u003C!-- next-step:END -->\n        \u003C\u002Fdiv>\n      \u003C\u002Fdiv>\n      \u003Csection class=\"insight-faq\" id=\"faq\">\n        \u003Ch2>FAQ\u003C\u002Fh2>\n        \u003Cp class=\"insight-faq-sub\">Quick answers on this topic—still stuck?\u003Ca href=\"\u002Fcontact?from=copq\">Contact\u003C\u002Fa>\u003C\u002Fp>\n        \u003Cdiv class=\"faq-list\">\n        \u003Cdetails class=\"faq-item\" open>\n          \u003Csummary>Should prevention cost include training fees?\u003C\u002Fsummary>\n          \u003Cp>Yes, but the scope must be fixed: only training directly related to quality counts, including work standards, inspection methods, gauge use and internal auditor training. General management, safety and onboarding training do not count, otherwise the number gets challenged as padding. Write the basis into the account table and apply the same basis every period.\u003C\u002Fp>\n        \u003C\u002Fdetails>\n        \u003Cdetails class=\"faq-item\">\n          \u003Csummary>Customer compensation is booked as a sales expense — does it still count as external failure?\u003C\u002Fsummary>\n          \u003Cp>Yes. The test is whether the money was spent because quality was nonconforming, not which accounting head it sits under. The method is to build a mapping in the account table: finance keeps booking as before, cost of quality collects by the mapping rule, and nothing is counted twice.\u003C\u002Fp>\n        \u003C\u002Fdetails>\n        \u003Cdetails class=\"faq-item\">\n          \u003Csummary>Should rework hours use standard hours or actual hours?\u003C\u002Fsummary>\n          \u003Cp>Use actual hours. Standard hours systematically understate internal failure cost, because rework is usually done by skilled workers working faster than the standard. Where actual hours are unavailable, convert from the actual start and end times on the rework order and mark that portion as converted on the report.\u003C\u002Fp>\n        \u003C\u002Fdetails>\n        \u003Cdetails class=\"faq-item\">\n          \u003Csummary>Should cost of quality be counted monthly or by batch?\u003C\u002Fsummary>\n          \u003Cp>You need both, for different purposes. Monthly shows trend and the shift in the four-category mix, used to judge whether investment should change; by batch shows the loss on a single batch, used for quoting and improvement priority. Do only one and the other class of problem stays invisible.\u003C\u002Fp>\n        \u003C\u002Fdetails>\n        \u003Cdetails class=\"faq-item\">\n          \u003Csummary>Should the result be tied to performance right away?\u003C\u002Fsummary>\n          \u003Cp>Not at first. Once it is tied to performance the data gets massaged, and the first year's job is to stabilise the basis and make the numbers reproducible. Wait until the basis has held unchanged for two consecutive quarters and the total can be drilled to individual documents before tying it to performance or improvement projects.\u003C\u002Fp>\n        \u003C\u002Fdetails>\n        \u003C\u002Fdiv>\n      \u003C\u002Fsection>\n      \u003Csection class=\"insight-related\">\n        \u003Ch2>Related reading\u003C\u002Fh2>\n        \u003Cdiv class=\"insight-related-grid\">\n          \u003Carticle class=\"r-card\" data-line=\"qms\" data-aud=\"q\">\n        \u003Cdiv class=\"r-tags\">\u003Cspan class=\"r-tag\">QMS · Quality\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003Cspan class=\"r-tag\">Quality Management\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fdiv>\n        \u003Ch3>Nobody trusts a 98% CAPA closure rate—define “closed” as three verifiable conditions\u003C\u002Fh3>\n        \u003Cp>Distortion in the closure rate is mostly because closing only changes the status. Starting from on-site audit sampling, provide the three essential controls for implementing measures, verifying effectiveness, and synchronizing documents, four methods for identifying padding, as well as the honest reading method for the three indicators of timely closure, effectiveness verification, and recurring issues.\u003C\u002Fp>\n        \u003Cdiv class=\"r-meta\">2026-06-25 · ~10 min\u003C\u002Fdiv>\n        \u003Ca class=\"btn btn-ghost\" href=\"\u002Finsights\u002Fcapa-closure-rate\">Read article\u003C\u002Fa>\n      \u003C\u002Farticle>\n          \u003Carticle class=\"r-card\" data-line=\"mes\" data-aud=\"prod q\">\n        \u003Cdiv class=\"r-tags\">\u003Cspan class=\"r-tag\">MES · Manufacturing\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003Cspan class=\"r-tag\">Return to work\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fdiv>\n        \u003Ch3>Rework raised but progress still shows complete? Scrap and rework must enter the WO state machine—not only yield\u003C\u002Fh3>\n        \u003Cp>If only the quantities are changed for rework and scrapping, the progress, completeness, and cost will all be misleading. Nonconforming disposition must drive the work order status and the whereabouts of work-in-progress, and closure must be verified; when combined with QMS, isolate conclusions to write back to the execution chain.\u003C\u002Fp>\n        \u003Cdiv class=\"r-meta\">2026-08-20 · ~8 min\u003C\u002Fdiv>\n        \u003Ca class=\"btn btn-ghost\" href=\"\u002Finsights\u002Fmes-rework-scrap-status\">Read article\u003C\u002Fa>\n      \u003C\u002Farticle>\n          \u003Carticle class=\"r-card\" data-line=\"srm\" data-aud=\"scm q\">\n        \u003Cdiv class=\"r-tags\">\u003Cspan class=\"r-tag\">SRM · Supplier\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003Cspan class=\"r-tag\">Quality claim\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fdiv>\n        \u003Ch3>Claim raised but money never deducted? Quality debit must hit AP—not sit in email attachments\u003C\u002Fh3>\n        \u003Cp>Quality claims never tie when claim, 8D, debit notice, and AP offset run apart. Bind claims to IQC\u002FNCR and PO lines; put debit into auditable AP; close disputes with evidence.\u003C\u002Fp>\n        \u003Cdiv class=\"r-meta\">2026-07-09 · About 8 minutes\u003C\u002Fdiv>\n        \u003Ca class=\"btn btn-ghost\" href=\"\u002Finsights\u002Fsrm-claim-quality-debit\">Read article\u003C\u002Fa>\n      \u003C\u002Farticle>\n        \u003C\u002Fdiv>\n      \u003C\u002Fsection>\n    \u003C\u002Fdiv>\n\u003C\u002Farticle>",1793937990873]