I just overheard one of our quality folks pitching a fit. Apparently, quality is now to analyze manufacturing efficiency, and trend the down time/parts per minute rate n’such. The offended quality staffer thinks that should be a MFG ENG function. Personally, I can see this analysis bringing some much needed “value added” to the quality group – Why not do it?

What do you all think?
Should manufacturing efficiency be a quality function? Y or N?

You say that "quality is now to analyze manufacturing efficiency" and then ask if manufacturing efficiency should be a quality function. One doesn't necessarily follow the other. I think that if quality people are expert in identifying and quantifying undesirable variation, then why not manufacturing efficiency? So long as it's understood that the responsibility for using the data to make improvements resides with the function which has the authority to do so, then it's OK by me, at least in principle.

Emphatically - NO!
As if we don't have everything else on our shoulders!
The only way that I feel that quality should/would be involved, would be if the push for incentive pay made people not keep up with quality. (Quantity vs. Quality)
Also, in the places that I've worked, the inspectors and quality personnel are sometimes seen as the bad guys by the floor workers (like cops,) and we don't need any more antagonism added to the mix.
But, that's just my opinion.
:nope:

Sure, why not and make improving it a GOAL!

I think that should be a quality function even because could be a customer requirement. Much more it can make easily the monitoring processes.

It is here. Should it be, I think so. It's called continuous improvement. Does it mean the quality person/department needs to do all the work? No, but the quality person/department can champion the projects. My experience has taught me we have more experience in data collection and analysis than maost, which is necessary if you're to determine effectiveness of your programs.

Here's my 2 cents.
The so called "Quality Department" should be more involved in problem prevention than problem finders. We're quick to find the Root Cause but slow to prevent the root cause. I'm in the process of training my technicians to be process engineers so they are more proactive to process or operator failures.
To me it is very similar to oil changes in your car. If I'm buying a used car I would prefer to buy one off the person who had regular scheduled oil changes rather than the person who only changed the oil when the idiot light came on. One is being proactive and trying to prevent failures and one is letting the failure tell them when to act.
If you have a Production Control department then you may have arguement, but as for me, I'd be more than willing to take it on.

I added a poll to this thread.Apparently, quality is now to analyze manufacturing efficiency, and trend the down time/parts per minute rate n’such. The offended quality staffer thinks that should be a MFG ENG function.That depends...

Scenario 1: A small Q dep, in some cases just one single person. Quality related tasks are handled by the line organization. In this situation (which is getting more and more common) the answer is easy: Manufacturing should do it.

Scenario 2: A more classical Q dep, dealing with everything quality related. This is different. The Q dep. can do it...

But wait: Why is scenario one getting more and more common? Because we want process owners to assume command of their processes, including quality matters. This is why I think manufacturing should do it themselves, but of course the Q dep can help them getting started if necessary. The Q dep should help them helping themselves.

/Claes

If we recall the evolution of "Quality", we find that we progressively took on more and more "duties". When "Quality" started, it was product inspection, then process inspection through SPC, then business systems, including document control and auditing through ISO, then Lean, etc. etc. etc.

So it is not surprising that we are asked to do more. But at the same time, as Claes infers, the move to make people (line, supervision, management) responsible for their own "quality" tasks has pressed forward.

The end result seems to be that we become the Resources and Catalysts for an organization. We don't collect the data - but we analyze it and assist with creating proper data collection techniques. We do audit - but the actions required to improve processes are the responsibility of the functional area. At the last company I worked for they even moved receiving inspection to Purchasing, but Quality (me) performed statistical analyses and DOEs.

IMHO / FWIW (quick thoughts / quick typing / likely full of holes)

I just overheard one of our quality folks pitching a fit. Apparently, quality is now to analyze manufacturing efficiency, and trend the down time/parts per minute rate n’such. The offended quality staffer thinks that should be a MFG ENG function. Personally, I can see this analysis bringing some much needed “value added” to the quality group – Why not do it?

What do you all think?
Should manufacturing efficiency be a quality function? Y or N?

Most places I have been or was at the longest, this was an accounting function because the had all the data on quoted costs, fixed and variable burden and what quantity need to be attained during the shift to earn a profit and how much.
If the run rates are agreed to by manufacturing and established by accounting, then they need to track the results.
However, here the OEE is calculated and tracked by Manufacturing and Engineering. Just additional options for the responses.

Good points, all; both pro and con.
I tend to support the task for three reasons.
First, we (quality) have the tools to do the analysis.
Second, we all (the work force) are resources to be applied where needed.
Last, this project, unlike many others I’ve seen come an go, actually has a measurable “value added” to our product.

Based on the contraction I have watched (and experienced) in Quality positions, I recommend all quality professionals become familiar with the efficiency measurement function.

Isn't efficiency a component of results, an outcome of doing things well? Doesn't it also tend to express how well our functions are performing?

The nature of our world is changing. To remain a part of it, I submit that savvy quality professionals should learn cost accounting principles because they can help us "prove" COPQ and the benefits of our partnership.

Good points, all; both pro and con.
I tend to support the task for three reasons.
First, we (quality) have the tools to do the analysis.
Second, we all (the work force) are resources to be applied where needed.
Last, this project, unlike many others I’ve seen come an go, actually has a measurable “value added” to our product.


YES!! What better way to get buy in from the suits? This is an area where we can use our tools to show quantifiable increases in the green stuff. If you think it is not a good idea, answer me one question:

Who is better equipped?

I was torn on this one….but voted no. What I can’t get out of my mind is; why wouldn’t this be a function that the production coordinator/manager and the floor supervisor be doing? If they’re not doing this, then why not? It should be part of their job. If I were in their position I would want my shop performing at its highest efficiency possible to meet deliveries on time, cut down on overtime and so on.

On the flip side I know that all the improvements that I have made in production has increased production, reduced man power and has made my job much easier. I just have a hard time thinking that tracking all this should fall on the shoulders of quality. Can we do it, yes. Should we??????:bonk:

What ever happened to separation of production and quality? :confused:


:2cents:

I don't disagree with Craig or Cordon.
Yes we can do these activities, and we have intitated a lot of objective data which, in some instances, provides credibility to the results. But, how long should it be done, and where do we draw the line. I support the function of Quality as being advisors and coaches, and all the things we are expected to do, but too many times when Quallity tries to help by providing a service, it becomes their responsibillity forever. Then the Quality department becomes a crutch for manufacturing, or blame if something goes wrong. Remember..Quality has not made a product yet, but we help make it better.

YES

It should be defined as one of the company goals and objectives.

I used to say NO in the past, but having implemented Lean, we defined manufacturing efficiency as a company goal. Now QA measures quality and efficiency in an attempt to improve both.

My :2cents:

Let me throw my nickel in....

I was on the Manufacturing Engineering side of the "force" (hence the name IEGeek) (Industrial Engineering, get it?) and I seemed to be doing more and more quality functions, SPC, Negative Critical Binomials, Pareto Charts, MTBF Data Collection etc. on top of all the IE functions I was performing. At some point in the past, I switched to the "dark side" and now I am a full fledged Quality Geek (In title anyway) however I do a lot of both, Quality and IE. They go hand in hand in my current employment situation, not too mention it made me very marketable as a candidate.

That all being said, I still feel they go hand in hand, but I have to agree with one of the comments; "The end result seems to be that we become the Resources and Catalysts for an organization. We don't collect the data - but we analyze it and assist with creating proper data collection techniques. We do audit - but the actions required to improve processes are the responsibility of the functional area."

To those that are pitching a fit about having to do more to make the company more efficient, may I pleasantly remind you that you are supposed to play for the name on the front of your jersey, not the name on the back.
Wouldn't greater efficiencies make more profit, thereby creating a bigger bonus pool (if you get bonuses) and if not would it not make those in charge easier to convince come rate review time?

We are all overworked (well not all of us) we all have a lot to do and the last thing we need is more responsibility, but the way I see it, we are on the floor conducting audits, watching processes, providing input into the manufacturing process anyway. I am sure we have all seen a better way to do something while we are watching an operator, why not share it?

Just some thoughts....

Who is better equipped?[/QUOTE]


I'm kind of new to mainstream quality,
but the sense I get from those around me is;
the more equipped entities also answer prayers.

;)

.... and here's your change, IEGeek.

I just pile the rocks here. ,,,It's just another column of numbers.

Sun Tzu: Deceive the sky to cross the ocean.

IE, I couldn't agree more.
My last job was in Ops Eng. We had an IE, a Black Belt, QE, and an Mfg Eng. It was our responsibility for all the improvement projects. We stayed very busy, but what an oportunity it was.

...may I pleasantly remind you that you are supposed to play for the name on the front of your jersey, not the name on the back.



Hey, I like that. I'll add that to my list. Great.

Having QA monitor production efficiency works for me. In fact it was the first quality objective that I introduced after re-writing the QMS (along with increasing customer satisfaction).

The question is, is it a Customer oriented process? Of course it is, as you have to be able to deliver on time, have good quality and be able to reduce your cost. It is a part of ensuring that your processes are efficient and are continually improving. Does quality need to actually collect the data? No, as stated in the thread, quality needs to champion this type of measureable and track/report on it in order to determine how the organization is performing. In most, if not all organizations the data is there, it just needs to be made a measurable for continual improvement.
Rich

This is a good statement shown above...we (Quality) record process efficiency and track OEE monthly as a measureable against an established target as part of our Management Review. All measureable are established by the President and listed on one sheet for each month of the year. If measureables are below target, then improvement plans are listed.
Manufacturing develops, calculates, and plans improvements of the OEEs.

We're quick to find the Root Cause but slow to prevent the root cause. I'm in the process of training my technicians to be process engineers so they are more proactive to process or operator failures.
I like this comment/observation Randy. It's easier to improve results if those you're working with view you as part of the team/solution.


Regarding bmccabe's question, I think that Quality should embrace the opportunity to participate without assuming ownership of the process itself. I don't mean to be repetitive with the quotes but I especially agree with the following statements:

I think that if quality people are expert in identifying and quantifying undesirable variation, then why not manufacturing efficiency? So long as it's understood that the responsibility for using the data to make improvements resides with the function which has the authority to do so,

Does it mean the quality person/department needs to do all the work? No, but the quality person/department can champion the projects. My experience has taught me we have more experience in data collection and analysis than maost, which is necessary if you're to determine effectiveness of your programs.

The end result seems to be that we become the Resources and Catalysts for an organization. We don't collect the data - but we analyze it and assist with creating proper data collection techniques. We do audit - but the actions required to improve processes are the responsibility of the functional area.

Interesting topic....

IEGeek: I too am an IE - would not add the geek part, but an IE non the less. Like you, the IE/QA combination has served me well - the continuous improvement focus by organizations over the past few years have really fit IEs well - but that is a bit off topic....

While an IE, the majority of my time and experience has been in integrating quality AND productivity. The old days of Quality functions and Production functions being exclusive are obviously over, but the actual implementation of systems and proceesses that provide for the right information getting to the right person is not an easy task.

As was alluded to in previous posts, if the QA function has the skills to evaluate the efficiency of production then clearly make it their reponsibility and hold them accountable for it. The trick is getting the right department/group/employee to take on the responsibility. In some cases this is best done by QA and in other cases (usually in companies with an established manufacturing engineering group) the production group is best.

For what it's worth.....cheers!
Daryl

Should manufacturing efficiency be a quality function?

Maybe the question should be:
Should Quality be a function of Manufacturing Efficiency?

No matter who's mantle it is under, Quality of output and "efficiency" of process are inescapably interrelated and, at times, it can be very contentious trying to integrate the two.

James

Interesting replies so far. Quality function? well, yes as far as putting the information into its context with continual improvement, business management, quality system. Does that mean that you have to go it alone? no. Production needs to provide up-time and product throughput info. Accounting needs to provide the financial info. Quality needs to put it is some format that people understand what they are looking at. This should be a true multi-function activity, because it is going to impact production, maintenance, quality and financial aspects of your business.

Just another thought while I am thinking in these terms... I have never thought of SPC as a QA function either. That is process and product improvement performed by production, and supported by QA in analysis.

Just my thoughts, have a great weekend!

IMO I don't see how you can separate quality and quantity. It is useless to ramp up pruduction if your going to sacrafice quality. I see it happen ALL the time, trying to push product through the shop, and the end product is garbge that then has to be reworked.
Should it be QA's job? Yes, but in conjuction with production. And this desirable union of the two usually can only happen with help from the front office. If all three aren't working together towards the goal of increased production and continuing quality, you are only going to get half way there. United we stand, divided, we fall.

Two separate areas with, hopefully, two separate goals. To unite them would weaken the system of checks and balances. Before you can satisfy the customer, you have to turn the lights on in the morning.

(That's why I like the balanced scorecard. Production is in the bin for financials and quality is in the customer's.)

Two separate areas with, hopefully, two separate goals. To unite them would weaken the system of checks and balances. Before you can satisfy the customer, you have to turn the lights on in the morning.

(That's why I like the balanced scorecard. Production is in the bin for financials and quality is in the customer's.)
How can I disagree more! Two separate goals?!? Isn't the goal to give the customer what they want, when they want it? Continuity should be the BIG picture. I'm blue collar through and through, just trying to get the job done. If QA has their own agenda, (separate goals) it can lead to animosity and diresion. Sorry about the spelling. RSVP.

Yes, this is an interesting thread.

Here's my position. Quality is a support function, assisting in the tuning and mechanics of improving what goes on in production. We can't claim to do well unless our product/service succeeds and arguably unless our company thrives. We're all in the business of making great widgets or offering great services.

Thus it is that we are indeed inextricably linked with production, though some still view the two functions as adversarial to some degree.

While it's possible to show different metrics for a balanced scorecard, in my view there won't reasonably be more than one or two. Wherever Quality assists with streamlining operations, reducing defects or time to deal with them, improves customer happiness (both internal and external) we are after the same goal: robust and responsible profitablility.

And therein is the rub, isn't it? If there are people whose quest for profitability is not responsible or robust (Enron comes to mind) then the adversarial mindset is difficult to shed and our measurements of success might not be homogeneous. In my long range observation, companies who operate this way do not last or thrive competetively over long periods.

During a public Six Sigma course one of the attendees (a quality manager) was apoplectic. He had approached mgt for $65k to improve the "quality" of a machining operation and got shot down. We asked, "has output been within customer specs?" "Yes!" "Any returns or complaints?" "No."
We were looking at a deadman walking!

During a public Six Sigma course one of the attendees (a quality manager) was apoplectic. He had approached mgt for $65k to improve the "quality" of a machining operation and got shot down. We asked, "has output been within customer specs?" "Yes!" "Any returns or complaints?" "No."
We were looking at a deadman walking!Here was apparently a fellow who has not learned to communicate value with his managment. And it's true that some management communicate among themselves just fine, but not with quality or production professionals. Among many there has been a feeling of divisional separation for a long time.

It can take a good deal of time and effort to break out of a mental logjam like that. To do it, the person would need to bring something with him/her to communicate: a set of figures such as cost savings in a given period if XYZ was done. The cost savings could go into making a new product or service, or hit the bottom line, which would make management look very good to shareholders!

Until a person can make the idea look like it benefits those with the resources, that person will not gain the trust enough to invest them in an improvement project.

I've stayed away from this thread because I'm not very good at talking about manufacturing efficiency without becoming apoplectic myself. It's also notable that I haven't read the entire thread to see if I even warrant a say, however there is something on the subject that seems on the horizon.

The growth of quality has been marvelous, and confusing. The growth process itself has been chaotic and confused, leaving us with tiring standards that try to bridge a gap of tradition and a frightening, almost limitless advancement. If you're like me, you've often wondered when quality would get slapped in the face and put back in the inspection office on the shop floor.

We've often asked ourselves what the next evolution of quality will be. We've seen our initiatives and systems morph, grow in size and scope. The scope of quality today has grown across entire organizations, encroaching into and covering areas that it used to compete with, when quality was a traditional department.

The next evolution is into financials, then quality assurance will disappear.

Hah! I say that to be dramatic, but I believe it to be so. Let me explain.

Quality has a great parallel in truth. Truth can't be bought or sold. You cannot demand truth emerge or force it to comply with your will. Truth must be pursued with the whole mind and spirit. Truth reveals itself to you on its terms.

We must remember that we know this about quality. Quality is much like truth. It is not a department in a company, it cannot best be pursued by Six Sigma or ISO 9000. Quality is a degree of excellence, fitness for use. Quality, as we all know, and as we all really see it, is the result of the best of our minds, of our skills, of our cooperation and of our efforts.

However, quality has retreated into the QC department. It's been chased into this corner by a swell in the importance of something else. Profit, laziness and greed have pursued their aims and quality was destroyed in their path. This dark force of poor quality resulted in non-sustainable ventures, products, and practices, everything we build became a disposable commodity and quality was forgotten and even came to be hated--but most of all, completely misunderstood.

We see now the application and spread of quality as it is now re-emerging. Difficult times approach, and the dark force of unsustainable avarice and laziness is becoming brightened by the application of quality to all of its workings. Quality is re-emerging as the basis of business and organizations and efforts in all sectors.

Financials are the next realm of business that quality professionals will be asked to work on. Why? Because we haven't been there yet.

Quality is catching on. The success of quality's application in inspection, manufacturing, provision of services and process management is becoming hard to ignore, and it's no surprise. Business is slowly waking to this growing phenomena. They are doing something about it by utilizing quality professionals, tasking these people to take their tools and positive results and apply them in all areas of business.

I know little about Japan after WWII. However, it seems obvious that the Japanese approach after World War II is the quintessential example of the application of quality. An entire nation of hard working, serious people took to industry and put quality ahead of them on their path. The results speak for themselves. I don't know much about this subject, but I'm willing to bet the formalization of quality management in Japan was long not necessary.

Jack Stack led an employee buyout of an International Harvester plant and they called it Springfield Remanufacturing Corporation. They purchased this business back in 1978 for something like $100,000 of mortgaged homes and education funds and savings, and stood to lose it all for the first year. The company was in the worst of dire straits. Financials had to be reported to the bank weekly.

The approach was to open the books, empower the people, and give them a stake in the outcome. The result of this approach destroyed the concept of quality by quality assurance. Quality was built into the organization in a big way. SRC Holdings had a focus on customer satisfaction and continual improvement of the process long before ISO 9001:2000 adopted these basics.

These examples show what happens to quality when times get tough. Quality becomes vital to our efforts when we're in a race to survive. That struggle is getting harder in the world today.

The quality of everything we do in organizations and in our lives is being slowly advanced, because difficult times are upon us. Eventually, if things go a certain way, it is likely that the quality function in factories will be small. Quality assurance will have taken qualiity back into the functions where it was so lacking, where it is needed.

Therefore, whenever there is question of where next quality will expand into and evolve, wonder instead where we haven't been. Where is help needed the most? Where next will we do good?

Ugh why did I try to write an article

;)

Either way I think quality should stay on the march through manufacturing, through business finance, through politics and government and everywhere else it is needed.

The world needs more quality improvement than my writing does.

In a everyone-is-responsible-for-quality-sense, should it be a quality function? Yes. Absolutely.

I just don't think the QA/QC function should shoulder the burden if measuring and tracking manufacturing efficiency

Who develops the calculations to obtain OEE?
Who sets the targets for OEE?
Who tracks each piece of equipment, on each shift for OEE?
Is Quality is responsible for making good parts iat the desired rate


Quality should not be responsible for OEE.
This is like saying Quality is responsible for scrap.
Quality doesn't manufacture parts.
Quality helps production make good parts efficiently.

In my organization, it is right where it should be...with Manufacturing as sole responsibility.

What is the discussion about? :confused:

Is it about manufacturing people producing the items and quality people responsible for the quality of these products and processes???? :frust:

Or is it about efficiency in manufacturing to ensure quality of the processes and products which involves all the people - TOGETHER. :D

I believe that manufacturing efficiency is an inherent characterstic of the manufacturing process answering the requirement of other processes and interested parties and hence is definitely a quality function.

Who is responsible? - ALL

I just overheard one of our quality folks pitching a fit. Apparently, quality is now to analyze manufacturing efficiency, and trend the down time/parts per minute rate n’such. The offended quality staffer thinks that should be a MFG ENG function. Personally, I can see this analysis bringing some much needed “value added” to the quality group – Why not do it?

What do you all think?
Should manufacturing efficiency be a quality function? Y or N?

Seems to me that this is a golden opportunity for Quality to demonstrate to management (if they have'nt already) that they are in the SAME corner as management.
As you increase efficiency, you decrease downtime- and get more stuff out the door. At the same time you can be looking for ways to improve the processes so that as you get more out the door, it is also better.
That's the theory, but implentation of it ....

Sounds to me like a pretty good quality function.

Actualy - It is a quality function. You don't have FIFO, JIT, etc without it...
But do I like monitoring/capturing/reporting it - NO NO NO . :nope:

Actualy - It is a quality function. You don't have FIFO, JIT, etc without it...
But do I like monitoring/capturing/reporting it - NO NO NO . :nope:


Mfg. Efficiency is a measurable of the manufacturing process, because it measures the efficiency of the manufacturing process. It does not measure the efficiency of the Quality process. There is certainly some linkage, but ISO wants us to measure the performance of each process, not just of the organization.

The Quality process does not make the manufacturing process more or less efficient. Quality personnel are just the internal specialists to help judge the product output. Manufacturing made the parts. Not Quality.

Mfg. Efficiency is a measurable of the manufacturing process, because it measures the efficiency of the manufacturing process. It does not measure the efficiency of the Quality process. There is certainly some linkage, but ISO wants us to measure the performance of each process, not just of the organization.

The Quality process does not make the manufacturing process more or less efficient. Quality personnel are just the internal specialists to help judge the product output. Manufacturing made the parts. Not Quality.

This is it exactly. Finally a voice of respected knowledge to put this to bed.

I agree with everything that you said except this:

Quality personnel are just the internal specialists to help judge the product output.

Being from a smaller company maybe I'm just lucky to be directly involved with process design/improvement/efficiency. Hope I didn't miss something. :bonk: Again!

Yes:

What is manufacturing efficiency?

in terms of engineering efficiency is:

efficiency= What is obtained / Maximum it could be obtained.

Therefore manufacturing efficiency ifor my interpretation:

manufacturing efficiency= Parts obtained / max parts could be obtained.

Therefore of caurse it is a good index to meassure the process manufacturing and by this a quality function.

:bonk:

Sorry the program submit 3 times the same post and do not le me delete it.

Sorry the program submit 3 times the same post and do not le me delete it.

This is it exactly. Finally a voice of respected knowledge to put this to bed.

thanks...not sure how respected my voice is, but I ambitiously strive to help clients measure each process effectively and discretely, per cl 4.1 c and e...

I agree with everything that you said except this:



Being from a smaller company maybe I'm just lucky to be directly involved with process design/improvement/efficiency. Hope I didn't miss something. :bonk: Again!


I was not diminishing the value of quality personnel. They are internal experts, typically higher than operators have. My point was that they do not make quality, they are specialists who evaluate and determine quality already in the part. As such, they should not be held accountable for the quality level, they are reporters.

(There are other activities as well, such as improvement and corrective action, but that is another topic.)

I was not diminishing the value of quality personnel. They are internal experts, typically higher than operators have.

Did you mean "...typically higher than operators are?" :lol:

Yes:

What is manufacturing efficiency?

in terms of engineering efficiency is:

efficiency= What is obtained / Maximum it could be obtained.

Therefore manufacturing efficiency ifor my interpretation:

manufacturing efficiency= Parts obtained / max parts could be obtained.

Therefore of course it is a good index to meassure the process manufacturing and by this a quality function.

:bonk:


But, it would be a measure of the quality function of the manufacturing process, wouldn't it? Not a measure of the quality process?

Did you mean "...typically higher than operators are?" :lol:


...oh, all right....if you insist...

...oh, all right....if you insist...

Just to be clear, I wasn't taking issue with your grammar; I was referring to a possible listing of employees most likely to be high.

Does not quality improvement improve manufacturing efficiency? I certainly believe it does...Variation is our common enemy.

Does not quality improvement improve manufacturing efficiency? I certainly believe it does...Variation is our common enemy.

Of course your comment is correct. Improvement is the underlying objective for every process.

But does the comment address the question of whether to assign efficiency to the Manufacturing process, or the Quality process?

Boy you opened a can of worms with this one! It appears that you and I think alike. I think it is an excellent idea to intergrate quality into the process.
The days of an inspector at the end of the line are over. Now the operator himself/herself is ultimately resposible for the amount of QUALITY parts they produce.

Excellent Discussion Piece! Look foward to hearing from you.

Of course your comment is correct. Improvement is the underlying objective for every process.

But does the comment address the question of whether to assign efficiency to the Manufacturing process, or the Quality process?

I'm in Helmut's corner on this one (as in most cases). We can say, for example, that the need for inspection might impact manufacturing efficiency, and since inspection is a quality function...

But the problem with that approach is that it's lack of efficiency in the manufacturing process that creates the need for inspection (in most cases). If the people charged with designing and implementing processes do so with elimination or significant reduction of inspection in mind, then the quality function has little or nothing to do with the efficiency of the process.

As I think I said back in the 1950's when this thread began, :cool: I see nothing wrong with the quality department being something like a scorekeeper, because often the talents and skills needed are most likely to be found there in many companies. But collecting data isn't the same as having responsibility for efficiency. That responsibility belongs (or should belong) with the process designer(s).

But does the comment address the question of whether to assign efficiency to the Manufacturing process, or the Quality process?

Sounds like a new thread to me.

But, it would be a measure of the quality function of the manufacturing process, wouldn't it? Not a measure of the quality process?


I agree but Quality is envolved in all the processes and must be managed by every process owner in order to achive their target taking into account the process messurement indexes and varying the inputs and asigning resources to achive it (I think this is the aim of the ISO TS 16949 :2002).

Therefore Quality is as God is in everywhere. :lmao:

It is not possible to stablish a limit, this was the old concept that Quality controlled Manufacturing. Now Quality must be envolved in Manufacturing, a part of it.

Do not have every process other Customer which is the next one?

The companies according to the standard define the processes and after that indexes to improve, therefore all parameters of effficiency or rates must be part of the aim of the Quality standard and the focus is to obtain a product meeting Customer requirements. This is my point.

I agree but Quality is envolved in all the processes and must be managed by every process owner in order to achive their target taking into account the process messurement indexes and varying the inputs and asigning resources to achive it (I think this is the aim of the ISO TS 16949 :2002).

Therefore Quality is as God is in everywhere. :lmao:

It is not possible to stablish a limit, this was the old concept that Quality controlled Manufacturing. Now Quality must be envolved in Manufacturing, a part of it.

The companies according to the standard define the processes and after that indexes to improve, therefore all parameters of effficiency or rates must be part of the aim of the Quality standard and the focus is to obtain a product meeting Customer requirements. This is my point.

I think we are using the same word, but meaning two different things. My comments were directed toward a process titled "Quality." I think you are discussing "quality" in a general sense as it applies to every process.

If this is so, then I thnk all the comments on this thread are suitable.

I think we are using the same word, but meaning two different things. My comments were directed toward a process titled "Quality." I think you are discussing "quality" in a general sense as it applies to every process.

If this is so, then I thnk all the comments on this thread are suitable.

The word Quality has diferent fields:

Quality Assurence ; Quality Control ; Quality management.

All parts of Quality apply to every process.

The problem is that the current companies still have the Departments divisions: Quality Departement; Manufacturing Departement and the above question shows us that the concept of process is not still asumed by the companies.

I remember a NC by a Swiss auditor who asked our CEO how the company was managed. He asked we have the production Department, ....

This was a NC, that finnally he did not raise, after that every person in the factory knew in which process and level was in.

i am indestrial engineer and one of my main tasks to monitoring the production efficency to ensure that production process were done withing accpetable limits to produce a qualified products.

Hi

I am facing the same challenge in my workplace at present. Currently our efficiencies are at an all time low 20-30% despite spending $4m on equipment and upgrades within an 18month period (we are a medium sized business) with a growth rate of just over 30% each year for the past 6years and it is still growing.

We have low morale, working environment is 30-40 deg c with up to 90% humidity - our workers are hot sticky and miserable, they don't like change etc etc, they have sabotaged other shifts when an incentive plan was in place prior to christmas, we have an engineering dept with absolutley no organisation or managing skills, therefore no direction or preventative maintenance, team leaders with no backbone or accountability therefore do not communicate effectively with production staff etc etc etc and QA are asked to look at manufacturing efficiencies when all of the issues are facing them. All data is collected analysed and reported but no follow-up........and the list goes on.

Every case is different therefore it is hard to determine whether it is right or wrong, the team size and available resources also play a big role. A comment was made earlier that QA are the best analyzers and root cause problem solvers, therefore it makes sense, but it is an overall operational team effort that should be developed as a project.
Good Luck

JJ

Yes, this is an interesting thread.

Here's my position. Quality is a support function, assisting in the tuning and mechanics of improving what goes on in production. We can't claim to do well unless our product/service succeeds and arguably unless our company thrives. We're all in the business of making great widgets or offering great services.

Thus it is that we are indeed inextricably linked with production, though some still view the two functions as adversarial to some degree.

While it's possible to show different metrics for a balanced scorecard, in my view there won't reasonably be more than one or two. Wherever Quality assists with streamlining operations, reducing defects or time to deal with them, improves customer happiness (both internal and external) we are after the same goal: robust and responsible profitablility.

And therein is the rub, isn't it? If there are people whose quest for profitability is not responsible or robust (Enron comes to mind) then the adversarial mindset is difficult to shed and our measurements of success might not be homogeneous. In my long range observation, companies who operate this way do not last or thrive competetively over long periods.

I couldn't agree with you more!:cool:

Hello everyone

IMHO, Manufacturing efficiency is measured with OEE (Overall Equipment Effectiveness/Efficiency). This metric relates 3 aspects of the manufacturing processes, or better, 3 aspects of operations management: equipment availability, efficiency/productivity (input/output) and quality. As so, this metric gives us a true snapshot of the behaviour of Manufacturing. In my view, manufacturing efficiency (ME) should be a operations performance metric and not just stand for quality function. The trend is to IE and QA to become a strong cartel in a shop floor under operations management scope. As so, I believe that ME analysis should be a result of sinergies of an integrated team or integrated knowledges. Nowadays is impossible to separate the paths of quality and industrial management, as both merge in the same path of continuous improvement, data analysis and resource optimization.

I just read a book on auditing with a funny Preface: " Achieving excellence-quality-is a primary goal of business" (an ASQ book no less). Quality is not a primary goal of business or more plant managers would be from the quality field. The only one goal in business, PROFIT.

It is in how we achieve profit that allows our discipline to exist. Note how fast lean is progressing another profit oriented methodology. Quality is a nonvalue added customer retainment necessity. I hate to to say it but at least in the US thats the way it is. So companies like Ford and others come up with mottos like Quality is Job 1 (remember that) yet some of their highest rated Quality Plant like in St Louis have been shut down?

So concider where you would be with poor efficiency? Out the door then all the shinny SPC charts and procedures we draft and implement would be gone. Its a realistic point of view. If we implement a procedure that is not effcient wont we recieve an audit finding at some point?

Efficiency is just as important as defects and should be independently monitored. When processes slow or a bottle neck is created a corrective action should be taken.

What of on time delivery which is a measure of quality that may not be able to be attained with poor efficiency.

I just read a book on auditing with a funny Preface: " Achieving excellence-quality-is a primary goal of business" (an ASQ book no less). Quality is not a primary goal of business or more plant managers would be from the quality field. The only one goal in business, PROFIT.

It is in how we achieve profit that allows our discipline to exist. Note how fast lean is progressing another profit oriented methodology. Quality is a nonvalue added customer retainment necessity. I hate to to say it but at least in the US thats the way it is. So companies like Ford and others come up with mottos like Quality is Job 1 (remember that) yet some of their highest rated Quality Plant like in St Louis have been shut down?

So concider where you would be with poor efficiency? Out the door then all the shinny SPC charts and procedures we draft and implement would be gone. Its a realistic point of view. If we implement a procedure that is not effcient wont we recieve an audit finding at some point?

Efficiency is just as important as defects and should be independently monitored. When processes slow or a bottle neck is created a corrective action should be taken.

What of on time delivery which is a measure of quality that may not be able to be attained with poor efficiency.


I don't agree. I see many companies which are committed to high quality. But, it is not the only goal. Profitability and customer satisfaction and other goals also matter. There is a balance, after all.

Me too idissagree with with you (psyched)... to get profit you must confirming your quality parametrs... Quality paramters mean which are your optimum settings to get optimum customer satisfaction,,,at same hand its processes efficency....for my view Quality must consier as cost saving for long term.. sure it will increase the cost for short term but you will targeted customers satisafction which mean future demand... Quality its not option same as processe effeincy.... im agree with the Title Question....Processes Efficency and Quality achivement is one thing!!....finaly many people missunderstanrd the quality meaning... the quality means achiving customers need (not to produce luxury product)(you will not make golden trape to catch mouse)..this means less price , relaible performance life....etc...
best regards

Profitability is the only goal. No business will have longevity without it. The balance will not matter long if you are lacking in profit.

Quality is subjective to your customers. You do not need to make the optimum widget you need to make a widget the customer needs and will pay for. If the widget does not generate a profit then why are you making it?

Quality taken to an extreme is a waste (not just a non-value activity). How many under 100 employee companies do you see training black belts? How many have robust SPC programs? How about a simple process engineer?

Again I point to the big three where two of GM's highest rated manufacturing sites for quality have been shut down. Look at how many companies are manufacturing in Mexico, Tiawan or Korea or have moved there? (Sorry if I offend but overall the quality and effciency is not equal. I equally accept that Japan and Germany far out weight America)

Monitoring efficeincy is a tool used to ensure profit. Profit if nothing else aids job security.

We as Quality professionals have to see the holistic picture not just our narrow view. I enjoy getting in their with the engineers and finding solutions, I like rolling up my sleeves and getting dirty on the floor and enjoy (not really) the managers meetings to discuss metrics and our companies future.

If monitoring efficiency means I have the ability to ensure profit generation and thus the livelyhood of my coworkers not to mention putting food in my growing boys mouths then I am all for it.

Profitability ISN'T the only goal, it is the effect from your goals.

Before we satisfy the needs of shareholders or employees, let's start looking at the customers' , with that being said, quality is the essential.

Profitability ISN'T the only goal, it is the effect from your goals.

Before we satisfy the needs of shareholders or employees, let's start looking at the customers' , with that being said, quality is the essential.


Ummm...that might be why Quality doesn't feel they get proper respect from Top Management.

Of course profitability is the goal. We try to satisfy the customer largely because without that, we won't maintain profit.

I am all for customer satisfaction, and have been for 30 years. However, the goal was profitability.

We have low morale, working environment is 30-40 deg c with up to 90% humidity - our workers are hot sticky and miserable, they don't like change etc etc, they have sabotaged other shifts when an incentive plan was in place prior to christmas, we have an engineering dept with absolutely no organization or managing skills, therefore no direction or preventative maintenance, team leaders with no backbone or accountability therefore do not communicate effectively with production staff etc etc etc and QA are asked to look at manufacturing efficiencies when all of the issues are facing them. All data is collected analyzed and reported but no follow-up........and the list goes on.

This goes back to a couple of issues: buy-in, responsibility, and money. Who is responsible for the production process? What is the motivation to change to status quo when an interloper (quality) tells you you need to use your resources to change a process (including retraining, etc.)? Who do the people really listen to on the shop floor (as in, who does their reviews)? Manufacturing is responsible for manufacturing. Quality can provide valuable resources to aid them, but they are rarely given the authority to control them. Look at this way - the separation of church and state: manufacturing is the 'state', it does whatever if feel it has to do to satisfy the squeakiest wheel. Sometimes that is the customer...in some cases not. Quality is the 'church'. It provides the conscience of the organization. Hopefully, the more manufacturing listens to quality, the easier it will be for them to sleep at night. But, you can lead a horse to water.....you know the rest. :cool: