:thanx: Dear All:
I have a trouble puzzled me for a long time .It`s sth about Inspection.

I work in a company produce Corpper Tubes,before 4 years ago we have full time inspectors for finished products inspection and key procedure products inspection. Some problems happend during produce and inspection. For operators it was not their duty for inspect and their earning depends on the quantity of the outputs. And this conflict causes bad influence on our products.

So we changed the policy of inspection.

We call it "who produce the products is in charge of the products",since then we abolished the full time inspection ,the operators inspect by themself and are in charge of the quality problems happend in the next procedure and also in customers.

Everything goes very well in this 4 years. It seems that the quality is more controllable than before .

The trouble is : this kind of inspection system is not acceptable to many customers ,and they considered it was nonconfromance.

Would u pls give us some suggestions on our inspection system ?

Hello!

Do you customer's have specific requirements (contractual) that state that end-item inspection is to occur? Do they have documented results that the # of defect products shipped to them are higher than before? Did your customer complaints (as related to product failure) increase or decrease?

When your customer states "nonconformance", what requirement/standard are they stating you don't comply with?

Are you performing any random sampling inspection of the finished product? Are your customers? Do you have an inspector verifying any results that the operators find?

I guess I am trying to determine exactly why the customer is stating nonconformance. They are the customer and we want to make them happy:).

Thanks BradM !

In fact ,according to my statistical result,the scrap rates in customer of our products decreased every year. Generally speaking, customer did not have any daubts on our inspection system if we didn`t told them that we don`t have any full time inspector. They consider that "the player can not be the judge at the same time"-This is the "non-conformance".I think they r reasonable ,but our products` judge are not the operator themselves, the judges are our customers. Any complains and penalty from our customer would be counted in personal assessment.

Random sampling inspection on finished production is done .And internal scrap found by operators would be confirmed by our technology people.Here the problem is : the technology people I mentioned who confirmed the internal scraps is in the same department with operators. Customer worried about this ,though the work run good according to the past 4 years .

So my friend, do u think is there any problem above ? thank u for your surgestion in advance !

First of all, DZ-Jang, I would say that you are doing the right thing (confirmed by the decreasing scrap rates). Now you just have to convince the customer.

They consider that "the player can not be the judge at the same time"-This is the "non-conformance".I do not se that as a non-conformance. As for the Player vs Judge statement, I prefer to see that as letting the operators assume responsibility for their own work... ...which is a good thing in my view.

/Claes

I agree with Claes and the general concept that a well done inspection by the worker is at least as effective as an inspector's work. This is because the craftsperson knows (or should know) what is good just as well as anyone, and if problems are fixed sooner the quality goes up while costs go down. The key to success in this method is making the craftsperson powerful enough to not be afraid to point out errors in his or her own part of the process. It seems you have done this but it's possible your customers do not understand it's possible and practical.

You have said that a random sampling is done at the end, which is in fact inspection program with a non-involved person. This method works for a great many modern U.S. companies. Having independent inspectors do it all is considered the old way in many QA groups.

You can point that out and the fact that quality has been increasing every year by doing it your way. Only when they heard the method did the results become unsatisfactory... In any case, the results talk the loudest: quality went up, and did that not make the customers happy? Would going back to the old method make them happy if it meant a slide in quality and rising proces because problems were found late in the manufacturing stream?

Keep your message clear and I believe you can prevail in this disagreement.

:thanx: Dear All:
I have a trouble puzzled me for a long time .It`s sth about Inspection.

I work in a company produce Corpper Tubes,before 4 years ago we have full time inspectors for finished products inspection and key procedure products inspection. Some problems happend during produce and inspection. For operators it was not their duty for inspect and their earning depends on the quantity of the outputs. And this conflict causes bad influence on our products.

So we changed the policy of inspection.

We call it "who produce the products is in charge of the products",since then we abolished the full time inspection ,the operators inspect by themself and are in charge of the quality problems happend in the next procedure and also in customers.

Everything goes very well in this 4 years. It seems that the quality is more controllable than before .

The trouble is : this kind of inspection system is not acceptable to many customers ,and they considered it was nonconfromance.

Would u pls give us some suggestions on our inspection system ?


Your customers considered your new process of operator ownership a non-conformance even though your quality improved? I think we maybe have missed something that was lost in translation?

Perhaps your customers felt becasue your operators were now inspecting their own work which has in the past in certain industries been frowned upon. Why not invite your customers QA representatives into your facility and show them the new procedures, SPC historical data showing improvement and your control points for ensuring product quality. Your customers may have had an old fashioned idea about how to inspect for quality. You improved the culture and perception at your facility, why not try to improve your customers perception with hard data, customer surveys, and a current plant tour.

We call it "who produce the products is in charge of the products",since then we abolished the full time inspection ,the operators inspect by themself and are in charge of the quality problems happend in the next procedure and also in customers.

Everything goes very well in this 4 years. It seems that the quality is more controllable than before .

The trouble is : this kind of inspection system is not acceptable to many customers ,and they considered it was nonconfromance.

Would u pls give us some suggestions on our inspection system ?

I call it "accounability, ownership and responsibility" good for you! It is ever so much more cost effective for production to be involved in the "quality" of products than to inspect after the fact only. My only suggestion to help you solve the problem of your customers' wanting separate inspection would be some sort of random final inspection as noted by others.

By the way, If your workers are truly committed to the effort, I don't see why they cannot be objective in their inspections.

I do not se that as a non-conformance. As for the Player vs Judge statement, I prefer to see that as letting the operators assume responsibility for their own work... ...which is a good thing in my view.
Right on.:agree1:

:thanks:


Thank you for all the suggestions you give ! You r so kind ! Your infomation are so usefull for me!

I will communicate with my customers according to all u have said ,and keep on improving our process .

thank you !

And one more thing, quoted Jennifer:"You have said that a random sampling is done at the end, which is in fact inspection program with a non-involved person. "---Our random sampling is done by the people who are in the same department with operators, could these persons called non-involved ?

Our random sampling is done by the people who are in the same department with operators, could these persons called non-involved ? You're quite welcome, and thank you for the kind words.

If the inspection is being done by persons who did not perform the steps being inspected and you can show the process works (the inspectors are objective, not influenced by relationships with each other) then I believe the program can be held up as an inspection model.

In modern companies the QA and QC functions are increasingly being performed throughout the organizations while Quality Department personnel monitor and control effectiveness, act as coaches and subject matter experts, and establish meaningful performance measures that both identify results and permit analysis of what caused the results. While some QA people have felt their jobs threatened by this evolving practice, in the end the object is to become a better functioning organization and it is up to management to appropriately use its personnel for overall good.

If you can show you do that, your customers could be won over but it might take time for them to change their minds. You may need to arrange a method of reporting the results of your program changes so as to provide compelling evidence showing your methods in fact caused the rise in quality. If you are also able to show you lowered your prices or did not increase them at the same pace of competitors, your arguments may gain added weight.