JurnalPost.com - Amid rising costs for raw materials, energy, and labor, many companies face a dilemma in their operations. On one hand, companies are pressured to maintain profitability and competitiveness. On the other hand, product quality must be upheld to ensure consumer trust is not lost.
One strategy frequently implemented is production cost efficiency. Companies strive to reduce expenditures by improving operational processes, minimizing waste, and adjusting the products being marketed.
However, a fundamental question arises: does efficiency truly make a company more productive, or is it merely an excuse to lower product quality?
This issue becomes increasingly relevant as several manufacturers adjust product sizes or quantities to cope with rising costs. The Chairman of the Indonesian Food and Beverage Producers Association (Gapmmi), Adhi S. Lukman, once noted that adjusting serving sizes can be an understandable step when price increases are difficult to implement due to weakening public purchasing power (Komalasari, 2022).
This phenomenon shows that efficiency decisions are not just about cost calculations, but also involve a company's responsibility to maintain the quality and value of the products received by consumers.
Efficiency Is More Than Just Cutting Expenses
In the business world, efficiency is a vital part of operations management. Companies must ensure that the resources used are capable of producing output optimally.
Heizer, Render, and Munson (2020) define productivity as the ratio ofoutputtoinput. This concept shows that productivity is not determined solely by the quantity of products produced, but also by a company's ability to manage resources effectively.
Unfortunately, the concept of efficiency is sometimes narrowly understood as an effort to cut expenses as much as possible.
In reality, not all cost reductions have a positive impact on business sustainability.
For example, a company might save on its budget by reducing employee training, limiting production oversight, or choosing cheaper raw materials. However, if these decisions lead to a decline in quality, the costs previously saved could potentially cause even greater losses.
Products that do not meet standards can trigger consumer complaints, product returns, and even damage the company's reputation.
Therefore, efficiency should be directed toward improving work processes and reducing waste, rather than simply eliminating expenses that are actually necessary to maintain quality.
Learning from the Boeing Case and the Importance of Quality Control
The importance of quality control can be seen from the Alaska Airlines flight incident number 1282 involving a Boeing 737-9 aircraft on 5 January 2024.
In that event, the mid-exit door plug mid-exit door plug detached while the plane was at an altitude of approximately 14,830 feet, about six minutes after takeoff from Portland, United States. The incident caused a rapid cabin depressurization.
Based on the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) investigation report on 2025, four locking bolts for the door plug were not installed when the aircraft was delivered to Alaska Airlines.
The NTSB concluded that the primary cause of the incident was Boeing's failure to provide adequate training, guidance, and oversight to ensure production procedures were followed consistently.
The investigation also found issues with production process documentation. The door plug had previously been opened for repair work, but the process of opening and reinstalling it was not documented as it should have been.
Consequently, the necessary quality inspections were not carried out.
Furthermore, a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) audit on 2024 found several instances of non-compliance related to manufacturing process control, component handling, and product control.
It should be emphasized that the NTSB did not state that cost-cutting was the direct cause of the incident.
However, this case provides an important lesson that weak training, documentation, oversight, and quality control can lead to serious consequences.
For a company, quality is not something to be checked only when the product is finished. Quality standards must be applied from planning, raw material selection, and the production process, through to when the product is received by the consumer.
The Shrinkflation Phenomenon and Consumer Trust
The issue of efficiency can also be found in the consumer goods industry through the phenomenon of shrinkflation.
This term refers to a condition where the size, weight, or quantity of a product is reduced while the selling price remains the same or does not decrease proportionally.
From a company's perspective, this strategy can help cope with the pressure of rising production costs without having to immediately raise the selling price.
However, for consumers, such changes can cause issues if information regarding the product's size or quantity is not communicated transparently.
In my opinion, reducing product size is not always a wrong move. Companies do have room to adjust their production and marketing strategies according to economic conditions.
However, consumers have the right to know about changes made to the products they buy.
Transparency is important because the relationship between a company and its consumers is built not only on price but also on trust.
When consumers feel they are receiving less value without clear information, the company's image can suffer.
Trust that has been built over many years is certainly not easily restored through mere promotions or discounts.
Quality Is Part of Long-Term Efficiency
From an operations management perspective, efficiency and quality should not be viewed as two conflicting goals.
Efficiency relates to the optimization of resource use, while quality reflects a product's ability to meet consumer needs and expectations.
Heizer and his colleagues (2020) explain that the cost of quality is divided into four categories: prevention costs, appraisal costs, internal failure costs, and external failure costs.
Prevention costs include activities to avoid errors, such as employee training and production process improvements.
Appraisal costs relate to product inspection and testing. Meanwhile, internal failure costs occur when defective products are found before being marketed, whereas external failure costs arise when problems are only discovered after the product is received by the consumer.
This breakdown shows that cutting prevention and inspection costs excessively does not automatically make a company more economical.
On the contrary, a company may face much larger additional costs if problematic products are already in circulation.
This view aligns with the thinking of W. Edwards Deming (1986), who emphasized that improving quality can help reduce waste, production errors, and rework.
Thus, quality is not a barrier to efficiency, but rather a factor that supports efficiency in the long term.
How Can Companies Save Without Lowering Quality?
Cutting production costs is not a wrong decision. In fact, such steps are necessary for companies to survive in business competition.
However, savings must be planned and must consider the impact on product quality.
First, companies can identify waste in the production process, such as excessive waiting times, overuse of raw materials, or inefficient inventory systems.
Second, quality control must remain a priority. Product inspections, process documentation, and the implementation of operational procedures must be carried out consistently.
Third, companies can seek alternative raw materials with more competitive prices, provided those materials still meet the established safety and quality standards.
Fourth, employee involvement needs to be strengthened. Workers who deal directly with the production process often have knowledge regarding sources of waste and opportunities for operational improvement.
Fifth, companies need to maintain transparency with consumers. Any changes in size, weight, quantity, or product specifications should be communicated clearly.
These steps show that efficiency can be achieved without having to reduce the value received by the customer.
Companies do not always have to produce products with the highest prices or the most complete features. What is more important is ensuring that products are safe, function well, and have quality that matches the price and the promised information.
Quality Is Not a Burden, But an Investment
Ultimately, production cost efficiency and product quality are two aspects that must be managed in balance.
Companies that focus only on reducing expenses might gain profits in the short term. However, such a strategy can become a problem if product quality declines and consumer trust begins to erode.
Conversely, companies that are able to improve production processes, reduce waste, and maintain quality standards have a greater chance of building sustainable competitiveness.
In my opinion, companies need to change their perspective on quality control. Costs for training, inspection, and oversight should not be considered merely as operational burdens, but as investments to prevent greater losses.
Good efficiency does not mean a company spends as little money as possible, but rather uses resources appropriately to produce products that continue to meet consumer needs.
Because, in the business world, companies do not just sell goods or services; they also offer trust. Saving is part of a business strategy, while maintaining quality is a responsibility that must not be sacrificed.
Bibliography
Deming, W. E. (1986). Out of the Crisis. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Center for Advanced Engineering Study.
Heizer, J., Render, B., & Munson, C. (2020). Operations Management: Sustainability and Supply Chain Management (13th ed.). Pearson.
Federal Aviation Administration. (2024, March 4). Updates on Boeing 737-9 MAX Aircraft.
Komalasari, T. D. (2022, June 24). Fenomena Shrinkflation Melanda Indonesia, Trik Produsen Atasi Inflasi. Katadata.
National Transportation Safety Board. (2025, June 24). In-flight Separation of Left Mid Exit Door Plug, Alaska Airlines Flight 1282, Boeing 737-9, N704AL. Aviation Investigation Report AIR-25-04.
Comments 0
Write a Comment Share your response