Jonathan:

No apology necessary.

The concerns you have with QC systems are absolutely valid, IMO. Yes, at worst, they are no more than lip service, intended to deceive the foolish and inexperienced. But not all are bad.

The best QC procedures require bonds, third party verification, and unannounced inspections. But yes, corruption can derail even the best QC program. Your old boss is not alone in using bribes to subvert proper QC procedures, but we would be rash to assume that all men, and by extension all QC programs, are likewise corrupt. It seems you had a very unpleasant experience in the corporate world. Sadly, too few corporations have QC programs aimed at improving senior management, and governments are notably ungoverned.

I would guess that only a minuscule percentage of the people that seek to have a timber frame house made nowadays know much about what goes into making one. Joe Blow thinks that wind is something people did to clocks before Duracell; that a tusk tenon is a kind of walrus tooth; and that a lamb's tongue is something he might eat at a Turkish restaurant. Acknowledging his ignorance, he may study a bit, but in the end he must find A MAN THAT HAS MASTERED A SUCCESSFUL PROCESS AND HAS PROVED OVER TIME (reputation) THAT HE IS WILLING AND ABLE TO FOLLOW THAT PROCESS WITHOUT CUTTING CORNERS. I suppose one finds such a man, or group of men, by asking around, reading the magazines, or searching on the web. Of course, he will inspect houses built by candidates, and ask knowledgeable friends for their advice. Perhaps he will ask to see contractor licenses, guild membership or apprenticeship completion certificates. If he is careful, and lucky, and spends enough time in his search, he may find the craftsman he seeks.

In answer to your question, yes I do have faith in SOUND QC systems, as far as they go. But don't read too much into that. QC procedures are simply evidence that a group of men know what should be done to achieve minimum quality standards. It is not a guarantee that those procedures are the best way to achieve those standards, nor is it a guarantee that they will execute those procedures consistently. The purchaser/consumer must confirm quality independently (often costly and inefficient on any significant scale over a long period of time), or trust in reliable organizations with specialized knowledge to confirm it for him. ISO is one such organization. ICC is another. When manufacturers, inspection organizations, or their employees succumb to corruption, accreditation is revoked, they receive criminal retribution, hopefully, and the reputation of everyone involved is destroyed. What better options are there on the industrial scale?

Henry Disston's advice in 1850 to craftsmen looking for a good handsaw (the most difficult of all hand tools to make properly) was to buy from a manufacturer with a reputation to lose. This is wise advice even today. A good, consistent craftsman knows that quality does not happen by accident: he will have QC procedures in place, even if he doesn't call them QC, and he will be anxious to protect his reputation. A manufacturer too is a group of craftsman, of varying skills and experience that rely on organizational structures to keep everyone moving toward the same goals. Therefore, it shouldn't surprise anyone that the most successful manufacturers have found that an organized QC program, based on careful analysis and documentation of those procedures found effective in keeping their clients happy, is a good tool for building a better reputation. In the world of today, it may be witty for a band of retro macramé artists to scoff at QC, but not a large manufacturer that wants to stay in business. A painful example from the last century: Toyota, Nissan and Honda learned Dr. Deming's lessons well, and then, sadly, taught them to GM and Ford the hard way.

Re profits as God. I feel sorry for people that allow themselves to get caught in that trap. In my experience, wealthy people are terribly miserable, but they don't even know it.

I wish you health and happiness. May your muntins and astragals never meander.

Stan