In the new issue of the scientific journal “STEK-V,” we present an original article by Pavel Kutsko, Editor-in-Chief and General Director of the Scientific Research Institute of Electronic Technology. He examines the challenges of organizing quality control in enterprises and, as always, proposes solutions.
Time for Change: A Race for Beauty or Mind?
TIME FOR CHANGE: A RACE FOR BEAUTY OR MIND?
I would like to begin by apologizing for the impassioned tone adopted for this editorial; nevertheless, I am profoundly grateful to have a platform through which I can express my personal perspective. I am deeply indebted to my colleagues for their unwavering support of the ideas presented in this journal. Furthermore, it is gratifying to acknowledge the significant number of like-minded individuals who share our vision.
In this article, I intend to address a long-standing and frequently discussed issue regarding quality control management at electronic industry enterprises, aiming to expose the critical nature of the current state of affairs.
At present, the enterprise is experiencing a total collapse caused by the actions of the military representative office. This is particularly striking given the current circumstances we live in. As of today, the production of safety stocks of electronic components (ECB) for military equipment has been halted. Furthermore, contractual documents and decisions ensuring the continuous production of specialized components remain unsigned. The shipment of finished products from the warehouse to fulfill the State Defense Order is being obstructed, and barriers are being created for the production of civil-purpose electronics. The work of various departments has been paralyzed by endless audits initiated by the military representation.
This is occurring at an enterprise that has firmly established itself as an industry leader, having increased its production volume more than tenfold in recent years, with a clean record regarding the fulfillment of the State Defense Order and R&D contracts for electronic components.
I am certain that this situation also persists at several other enterprises within the industry.”
The transfer of the state customer functions for electronic components (ECB) to the Ministry of Industry and Trade in 2011, as the agency responsible for industrial development as a whole, envisioned a gradual transition of functionality, policy, and core tasks in the planning and development of the electronics industry. Since then, the Ministry of Industry and Trade of Russia has been organizing the technological development of the sector, developing measures to stimulate the growth of the electronics industry and enhance the competitiveness of products manufactured within the Russian Federation.
Regrettably, the final transfer of state customer functions from the Ministry of Defense of Russia has yet to be fully realized. In particular, customer representative offices subordinate to the Ministry of Defense continue to operate at electronic industry enterprises. These offices function according to directives and orders designed for the organization, development, and production of weaponry, military, and special equipment (hereinafter referred to as VVST) and their components, failing to account for the specific nature of ECB creation processes.
One might ask: what problems could possibly arise from this? There is a prevailing opinion in society, and even within several security agencies, that customer representatives are necessary and sufficient ‘watchdogs.’ It is believed that, in addition to quality control and pricing oversight, they serve as guarantors for preventing legal violations at enterprises and as mediators in technical and production conflicts. Some executives of the controlled enterprises themselves concur with this view.
In my opinion, such a position indicates the inability of these functionaries to perform their official duties and to properly organize the work of their respective departments. However, even this stance could be acceptable if it were not for systemic problematic issues lying within the spheres of goal-setting and regulatory framework.
Regrettably, the documents governing the operations of the industry and those used by customer representative offices are inconsistent with one another. Regulatory materials developed by the Ministry of Industry and Trade for the creation of electronic components (ECB) are disregarded by customer representatives. This discrepancy leads to a conflict of interest, divergent approaches to labor organization, misunderstandings, and, in some cases, direct confrontations at the enterprises.
Moving forward, I will focus on our enterprise, although I am aware that similar issues exist at other organizations within the industry.
First and foremost: the realities of recent years — the Special Military Operation and the sanctions — have necessitated the creation of safety stocks of components used in the production of VVST. The State, the Government, and the regulator, represented by the Ministry of Industry and Trade, are taking timely measures to ensure this. Funds are being allocated for production development, and preferential loans are being provided for the procurement of necessary components and materials.
However, the loans taken by the enterprise to purchase safety stocks are not being turned over; instances of overdue obligations to credit institutions are arising, which inevitably leads to potential issues with tax payments and payroll.
Furthermore, the shelf life of components is limited, and failure to use them in a timely manner creates further complications for the enterprise. Although the Ministry of Industry and Trade has promptly developed a methodology for extending the shelf life of components, the customer representative office applies the relevant document selectively. Their primary argument is that this document has not been formally enacted for military representations by the leadership of the Ministry of Defense and is therefore considered illegitimate.
In these conditions, the customer representative does not authorize the early launch of ECB production, citing the tenets of the relevant regulations governing customer representative offices, which require a specific supply contract. According to this logic, an enterprise can only commence production after signing a contract with a specific consumer. This results in extensive lead times, uncertainty regarding the synchronization of VVST production schedules with ECB delivery dates, critically impacts the production and financial activities of the enterprise, and leads to other negative consequences.
Furthermore, any attempt by an enterprise to implement an early production launch is interpreted by auditing bodies as a violation of current legislation.
As a result, the safety stock conscientiously procured by the enterprise cannot be utilized; there is no finished product, and the fulfillment of the State Defense Order becomes impossible. The enterprise is steadily moving toward bankruptcy, downsizing, or liquidation, while thousands of consumers are left without the required electronic components.
Pricing issues are also addressed selectively: the enterprise’s costs are not fully accounted for, and the notorious deflater index does not always cover actual expenses. Separate accounting, promoted by customer representative offices as a panacea for pricing control, is also poorly applicable in its current form to ECB production. The quantity of items purchased in contracts varies from single units to hundreds, whereas modern microelectronic products are manufactured in batches of dozens or hundreds of wafers, each containing hundreds or thousands of dies. How to organize objective separate accounting in such a context remains a major question that requires a solution. It is evident that the procedure for maintaining separate accounting should differ between a tank and a microchip.”
I recognize that the current period may not be the most opportune time for disputes with the military authorities. However, objective problems must be addressed. It is very heartening to hear that these issues are being discussed at the highest levels. Solutions do exist, and in many cases, they are quite evident.
The necessary oversight functions can be implemented through the establishment of a unified mandatory certification system for electronic components (ECB) used in sectors critical to ensuring technological sovereignty. The responsibility for production control should be assigned to regional centers for standardization, metrology, and testing, which could act as representatives of the state customer on behalf of the Ministry of Industry and Trade of Russia.
This approach will:
- Ensure full consolidation of internal enterprise conditions with the policies and initiatives promoted by the Ministry of Industry and Trade to stimulate the development of the electronics industry.
- Encourage efforts to improve the ECB standardization system, particularly through the direct involvement of the aforementioned quality control centers.
- Strengthen market diversification for electronic components by implementing a unified mandatory certification system that optionally accounts for the requirements of all industries critical to technological sovereignty. This, in turn, will provide a vital impetus for the development of ECB production within the Russian Federation.
Furthermore, other functions could be handled by relevant regional structures; for instance, pricing control could be managed by regional branches of the Federal Treasury.
Returning, as always, to the title: changes today are vital, and I believe the time for them has come. Moreover, it is my hope that electronics industry enterprises will not act like a proverbial indecisive ape, but will instead turn to the Ministry of Industry and Trade—as the state customer for electronic components—as a ‘single window’ for both ‘intelligence and aesthetics’ (strategic guidance and industrial excellence).
What must be done immediately? At the very least, we must begin to act logically; solutions exist and have already been tested by the state. To start, contentious issues can be resolved through joint directives from the Ministry of Defense and the Ministry of Industry and Trade, providing a timely response to gaps arising from the imperfections of certain legislative acts and regulatory documents. And, of course, we must put an end to the overt sabotage at enterprises, which leads to delays in the State Defense Order and hinders the dynamic development of the industry.
I also address the industry as a whole! Such problems cannot be solved alone. We must consolidate and bring these issues to the table. A study I conducted within the industrial community revealed that over 90% of surveyed enterprises face issues in their dealings with military representative offices. At the same time, more than half of them are not prepared to speak out openly for fear of worsening these relationships. The time has come to step out of the shadows and make a choice—at the very least, so that we no longer resemble primitive creatures.”
