Er... The definition of "value added" varies, but I have a feeling none of us would be here if we added no value? I will answer in terms of not being in the "production hands-on" category.

Anyway: We are eight people in the Quality/Environment dep (including three people in the final inspection/lab, and we also do some jobs that are not linked to the traditional QA role. I would say three people directly involved in QA.

There is also the fact that our QA dep. used to be quite big, before we "outsourced" most of our functions to the respective process owners years ago, and retained only the "staff functions". This makes it a bit iffy to come up with a definitive count, but a rough estimate would be five to seven people directly involved in QA (not counting inspectors). With 380 people working here, I would say that we end up with a 1/65 ratio, but as I've said it's a matter of definition.

Counting all inspectors would for instance give us a 1/12 ratio...

/Claes
I like the concept of "outsourcing" activity and responsibility of many quality functions to the production folks who "own" the processes involved. We did this in a high-tech machining outfit. The remaining quality personnel became

designers of inspection processes in conjunction with cross-functional team (often including end customer as well as production folk) when designing the Control Plan for a particular product
trainers of all personnel on proper use and care of inspection instruments
"court of last resort" on sticky quality questions
supplier of a standing member of the Material Review Board
liaison with outside customers on questions of quality:topic: My question, Claes, is: "WHO initiated the idea in your organization? What was the trigger to get folks thinking of changing from the deadly routine of "Kwality Kops" to integrating quality procedures with the process owners?"

In our case, it was a realization that Deming was right, "prevention is better than detection." We (top management) decided we wanted to do the right thing the first time, every time. We just simply eliminated the "gotcha" aspect of quality inspection systems and enlisted everyone's help in looking for solutions, not scapegoats.

Copied from Number of Quality Personnel - How many quality personnel does your company employ? (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=14277) , because I found Wes' question interesting enough to warrant a thread of its own: My question, Claes, is: "WHO initiated the idea in your organization? What was the trigger to get folks thinking of changing from the deadly routine of "Kwality Kops" to integrating quality procedures with the process owners?" The situation was that we knew our organization was "oldfashioned", and when the time for reorganization came we all leapt for it.

I guess we were ripe, so to speak. I do not remember where the idea came from, but as I recall it, all involved parties were agreed from the outset: "Put people where they make most good and never mind what has been".

What about the rest of you? Any similar experiences?

/Claes

I wasn't here when it happened but my plant did the same thing when a new corporation came in and took over the plant about 6 years ago. I think it is a great idea and it definately helps with the ownership of the process but it has it's backslides as well. There were some cases where our SPC outputs lead management to operators with "magical parts."

We inspect five parts an hour on high speed processes for our SPC and there have been a few cases where the operator just kept five "magic parts" he knew were in spec back and inspected the same five parts every hour. Needless to say, the data had an interesting normal curve. I'm pretty sure these guys were fired.

The self ownership of the process inspection is a great idea but there can be some conflict of interest when finding a bad part causes the operator to do more work. When tooling wears down and parts go out of spec the operators have to change out the tooling. Obviously they are motivated to not make bad parts and they are getting direct feedback from their process at all times but when a process is going bad there is a definate temptation for the operator to ignore the problems.

I think self ownership of inspections necessitates error proofing of gauges and that's where my company has failed some what. If a gauge can be read more than one way (pretty common with small hand held measuring equipment), an operator running his/her own inspections will most certainly read the gauge the way that keeps them in spec so that they don't have to make changes to the process. Gauge R&R's and well written procedures are a must.

I still think the benefits of doing inspections on the spot by the operator outweigh the problems created. Any company making the switch needs to realize the risks involved and take precautions. Just remember the human factor to any inspection.

Copied from Number of Quality Personnel - How many quality personnel does your company employ? (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=14277) , because I found Wes' question interesting enough to warrant a thread of its own: The situation was that we knew our organization was "oldfashioned", and when the time for reorganization came we all leapt for it.

I guess we were ripe, so to speak. I do not remember where the idea came from, but as I recall it, all involved parties were agreed from the outset: "Put people where they make most good and never mind what has been".

What about the rest of you? Any similar experiences?

/Claes

My experience was from the 80's. :cool: We changed from a "Piece-work" system to self directed team-based system as a Tier 1 supplier to GM (well at least 95%). The concept of multi-skilled team member responsible for everything in the cell- quality, productivity, safety, basic PM, material transactions, etc. became our way of life, reinforced by training in all of the above. Quality was highly emphasized through drilling on fit, form, and function. Visual sample boards with min / max examples were used for critical criteria. QA "tested" each team member on product inspection, and Certified the operator as qualified to audit.

And I would as a Line Supervisor (Facilitator) :notme: monthly with QA, pick a random skid for audit by myself and QA that would roll up into a rating score for Quality. Field quality issues would be highlighted by a Quality Alert (initiated by QA) posting within the team that gave the details of the issue and the habitual containment actions for our system. Weekly team meetings were structured with a rotating member reporting as the "Quality Rep." who would report the metrics and initiate discussions regarding intra-team quality issues.

Looking back now, the best time of my working life...a well thought-out system supported with training and resources to acheive the system objectives. What a concept! :lmao: I think it's mostly gone now from my old company.:(

I suppose I am a living example of "outsourcing" of quality functions. I actually work in the Safety and Health department, but do all of the trending and statistical analysis of QA's data. Traditional CQE stuff.

There wasn't really a conscious decision by QA to "outsource", but since I was providing over the years better analysis and predictions than the folks within QA that were attempting to make charts, the function slowly gravitated through individual work requests to me. For a few years, QA provided a charge code for me to charge back for work done, but since both QA and S&H are "overhead" funded, there was considerable "tax" applied to those hours, and a gentleman's agreement was reached between QA and S&H that I would do whatever work they needed as long as it did not interfere with my S&H work.

This made a lot of sense, because there really wasn't enough work in QA or S&H by themselves to support a full time statistician. Yes, there have occasionally been political battles over the years between QA and S&H as to who should officially "control" me, but so far S&H has maintained its hold on me.

We "outsourced" the functions to Production...They fired the Quality director and then had the quality group report into the MFG Director. The problems we encountered were:
1. The MFG Director had no formal quality training, quality became secondary to the number of items shipped.
2. There was no group to speak for the customer, and no one dare challenge the boss.
3. Quality inspection were cut as they "slowed down" the line, there was no other process to bolster quality after final inspection got cut.
4. Returns were then blamed on the group instead of the Production Director owning quality

In any case the quality of the product got worse, much worse. The Deming philosophy works for companies that are mature and whose management and personnel have discipline, but those companies are few and far between.
I remember being told from my old quality manager that “we are here to work ourselves out of a job”, we didn’t even need to do that! So it was a bitter sweet victory when this happened : http://news.com.com/PCs+plagued+by+bad+capacitors/2100-1041_3-5942647.html they laid off the engineer and his group that did all motherboard traces….prevention is better than detection…

I wasn't here when it happened but my plant did the same thing when a new corporation came in and took over the plant about 6 years ago. I think it is a great idea and it definately helps with the ownership of the process but it has it's backslides as well. There were some cases where our SPC outputs lead management to operators with "magical parts."

We inspect five parts an hour on high speed processes for our SPC and there have been a few cases where the operator just kept five "magic parts" he knew were in spec back and inspected the same five parts every hour. Needless to say, the data had an interesting normal curve. I'm pretty sure these guys were fired.

The self ownership of the process inspection is a great idea but there can be some conflict of interest when finding a bad part causes the operator to do more work. When tooling wears down and parts go out of spec the operators have to change out the tooling. Obviously they are motivated to not make bad parts and they are getting direct feedback from their process at all times but when a process is going bad there is a definate temptation for the operator to ignore the problems.

I think self ownership of inspections necessitates error proofing of gauges and that's where my company has failed some what. If a gauge can be read more than one way (pretty common with small hand held measuring equipment), an operator running his/her own inspections will most certainly read the gauge the way that keeps them in spec so that they don't have to make changes to the process. Gauge R&R's and well written procedures are a must.

I still think the benefits of doing inspections on the spot by the operator outweigh the problems created. Any company making the switch needs to realize the risks involved and take precautions. Just remember the human factor to any inspection.
"Magic parts" are never a problem with a simple addition to the process. Tag and set aside the five samples from each hour with the marked inspection sheet (I presume only a few critical characteristics are measured) to the end of the shift for possible review and comparison if an out of control event occurs.

Critical to our process was the retention of quality-trained personnel as teachers and "court of last resort" in dealing with suppliers and customers on planning for an issue-free production before the first chip of metal was cut (every effort expended to PREVENT quality issues rather than react to them.)

Let me throw in perhaps a different perspective.....

In my travels I have seen a greater progression of (to borrow the CNN term) "imbedding" quality as a philosophy and also quality personnel (depending often on size of organization) into the operational groups. In those cases QA personnel take on more of a support and consulting role.

Various other things may/may not be included depending on the organization.

For most of the organizations I have seen take that route, it has been positive.

Hershal

"Magic parts" are never a problem with a simple addition to the process. Tag and set aside the five samples from each hour with the marked inspection sheet (I preume only a few critical characteristics are measured) to the end of the shift for possible review and comparison if an out of control event occurs.


I agree with you on everything except for the "simple" part. I have 40 presses in my area running at least 20 hours a day. 5 parts X 40 presses X 20 inspections = 4000 parts per day. And how long do you hold them? My process includes a 4 day drying time after assembly so critical defects may not be realized until 5-7 days after fabrication. 4000 parts per day X 7 days = 28,000 parts.

Plant wide we probably have at least 600 presses that get specific sampling done every hour. Keeping historical sampling of parts is a logistical nightmare for even one day. Everything gets pretty complicated when you are making over 6,000,000 fully assembled finished products a day (my company makes ammunition for the armed forces).

I don't think that you can really avoid something like "magic parts" unless it's in your hiring practices. The truth is a quality assurance inspector could have done the exact same thing. If you have an employee who does not do his/her job, you are going to have quality issues. Quality isn't created in a vacuum, people linchpin the system.

If you have an employee who does not do his/her job, you are going to have quality issues. Quality isn't created in a vacuum, people linchpin the system.

I think it's interesting to note that many--if not most--of the job shops I've been associated with engage in prevarication with customers on a regular basis. In fact, it's often considered a part of the culture. From sales reps who lie about capability and capacity in order to make the sale, to fudged inspection reports, to making "business decisions" that result in knowingly shipping nonconforming product, job shop management often actively encourages employees to be dishonest. In cases like that, it's little wonder that a machine operator might think that dishonesty is the best policy.

I agree with you on everything except for the "simple" part. I have 40 presses in my area running at least 20 hours a day. 5 parts X 40 presses X 20 inspections = 4000 parts per day. And how long do you hold them? My process includes a 4 day drying time after assembly so critical defects may not be realized until 5-7 days after fabrication. 4000 parts per day X 7 days = 28,000 parts.

Plant wide we probably have at least 600 presses that get specific sampling done every hour. Keeping historical sampling of parts is a logistical nightmare for even one day. Everything gets pretty complicated when you are making over 6,000,000 fully assembled finished products a day (my company makes ammunition for the armed forces).

I don't think that you can really avoid something like "magic parts" unless it's in your hiring practices. The truth is a quality assurance inspector could have done the exact same thing. If you have an employee who does not do his/her job, you are going to have quality issues. Quality isn't created in a vacuum, people linchpin the system.Obvious to me, but not perhaps to you, I was addressing a generic situation.
If there is a 4 day drying time, what on earth are they testing to keep magic parts?

If we deal with in-process inspection, there are characteristics which get inspected at different phases of the process. I would expect characteristics visible only after drying to be checked AFTER drying.

I wrote about releasing samples after a SHIFT, not a 20 hour day (4 hours for maintenance?)

When you have as large a volume of sampling as your plant, it begins to make sense to have direct read of characteristic via computer-connected instrument (can still mark and hold sample for retrieval or reread if a "situation" arises) With this kind of quantity, it makes sense to scrap any samples after 4 days if it was taken in in-process inspection (i.e. not completely run through the whole process.) (When Jack Daniels samples whiskey during the aging process, they spit out the sample (or swallow?) - they sure don't put it back in the barrel.)

When you have as large a volume of sampling as your plant, it begins to make sense to have direct read of characteristic via computer-connected instrument (can still mark and hold sample for retrieval or reread if a "situation" arises) With this kind of quantity, it makes sense to scrap any samples after 4 days if it was taken in in-process inspection (i.e. not completely run through the whole process.) (When Jack Daniels samples whiskey during the aging process, they spit out the sample (or swallow?) - they sure don't put it back in the barrel.)

:D That's what we are using. Guess I was a little confused as to what you were saying. :o The direct gauge to computer interface is where the "magic parts" come into play. The operators who are inspecting their own process keep five parts that they know are good and they gage them every hour. So, instead of keeping track of the process, they input the same five numbers every hour.

Honestly, it's the height of laziness and it's downright fraud but it has actually happened on our plant in two different situations. I think it has happened in the past on processes that don't change very often so the operator starts to think, "this is a pointless check, I know better...." But then our process takes a sudden shift without anyone knowing it.

I don't think this is the problem I worry about on a regular basis. These bad apples are few and far between. It's the really subtle differences an operator can create through bias in a gage that worry me. If you have ever used a split ball micrometer you know that a slight shift in the way a part is held can affect the reading. If an operator of a process knows what the control limits are and a part is on the edge of telling them to make an adjustment, he/she may hold the part just a little bit differently so that he/she doesn't have to adjust.

An outside inspection done by a quality assurance inspector is going to measure parts the same way every time because they don't have the motivation to find parts in spec, they just have the job to measure parts. This leaves you with two choices.

1) Use an outside inspector that has no connection to the process.
2) Error proof the gages so that the operator has to measure the parts the same every time.

I strongly recommend option 2. I just think anyone going from a quality cop dynamic to a police yourself dynamic needs to be aware of what is motivating their employees. If quality is their highest priority, then they should be fine. If they are being pulled in the two very different directions of make quality product and make product fast, they may very well choose to hold the product just a little bit skew so that they don't have to make an adjustment.

In the operators mind, they may think they are pleasing everyone by getting a good number in SPC and getting the product out fast even though the good number in SPC doesn't mean anything anymore.

If there is a 4 day drying time, what on earth are they testing to keep magic parts?

If we deal with in-process inspection, there are characteristics which get inspected at different phases of the process. I would expect characteristics visible only after drying to be checked AFTER drying.


Just to clarify this. The 4 day drying time has nothing to do with the inspection that can be affected by magic parts. All of our inspections are done in process while the machines are running and where the machines are running. After this process there is a 4 day drying time necessary before another inspection (a functional test actually). If someone was using the magic parts to get the inspection completed it may be a week before those products reach a point that someone will notice that something has changed.

The issue is that the characteristics measured before drying will affect the function of the product in the tests after drying. I thought (wrongly I think) that someone would have to keep the inspected parts until a point at which someone would have realized there was a problem with the parts. Without a good in process check of the parts, no one would know that there was an issue with these parts until the functional tests that came after the drying time.

:( I apologize for the confusion I've caused (and the confusion I'm probably still causing). :(

:truce:

:thanks:

So, my point is, if there is a process to mark and hold samples, subject to reinspection, the incentive to use "magic" parts disappears, since they are aware they can be "caught" fudging samples at the end of ANY shift. The crucial factor is to remove the opportunity to hold magic parts to be measured again and again.

The crucial factor is to remove the opportunity to hold magic parts to be measured again and again.
No, the crucial factor is to remove the incentive to hold magic parts to be measured again and again. If you can't trust your employees, you have a bigger problem than magic parts.

One other thing that bears on the subject of fudged inspections is that it's important that when parts are measured, the actual measurement results are recorded, as opposed to just recording the fact that inspections were done. The reason for this is that it's often a simple matter to show statistically that the fudged results are significantly different from actual measurements. If at some point after the suspect readings have been made, a suitable number of parts are measured, if there is say, a two-standard-deviation difference between the means of the suspect parts and the objective measurements, you can be pretty sure that the suspect readings aren't just suspect anymore.

One other thing that bears on the subject of fudged inspections is that it's important that when parts are measured, the actual measurement results are recorded, as opposed to just recording the fact that inspections were done. The reason for this is that it's often a simple matter to show statistically that the fudged results are significantly different from actual measurements. If at some point after the suspect readings have been made, a suitable number of parts are measured, if there is say, a two-standard-deviation difference between the means of the suspect parts and the objective measurements, you can be pretty sure that the suspect readings aren't just suspect anymore.
It never occurred to me the measurements were other than exact (to the limit of the instrument) - else how can you really enter numbers for calculating SPC?

It never occurred to me the measurements were other than exact (to the limit of the instrument) - else how can you really enter numbers for calculating SPC?

We're talking about an operator keeping and measuring the same parts multiple times. Said deucesevenOS:
The direct gauge to computer interface is where the "magic parts" come into play. The operators who are inspecting their own process keep five parts that they know are good and they gage them every hour. So, instead of keeping track of the process, they input the same five numbers every hour.It's unlikely that an operator will enter the same numbers each time. He'll realize that there has to be some variation. The problem (for him) is that he probably won't be able to "simulate" variation well enough. There's a very strong likelihood that the center of his measurements will be significantly different from the mean of x parts randomly sampled and measured later.

No, the crucial factor is to remove the incentive to hold magic parts to be measured again and again. If you can't trust your employees, you have a bigger problem than magic parts.

Agreed. If people are trying to defeat the system you need to figure out why...wait now maybe its because they are on the one the tails of a normal distribution for performance otherwise they would be managment! :D
Most employees that do will fudge the system because of Management by objective. What I see is that many adopt removing process inspection (hooray!!), and then implement nothing, no error proofing or anything to take its place...:bonk: and then cite Deming!:magic: