I am the QSM for a company of about 75 ppl and the question is being raised whether to keep final inspection or completely leave inspection up to the operator. I am looking for some advice. Background: We are amanufacturing company in the trucking industry. What do you think guys?

It depends on your company culture. I worked at one start up facility where we did this very thing. All inspection was performed by the operators performing the work. Boxes were packed, sealed and labeled at the final operation. This facility had the best field quality of any with which I have worked.

On the other hand, I have worked in many facilities where I could not do this. I work toward this goal, and have always been able to significantly reduce final inspection, but the culture always prevented that final transition to full operator responsibility.

I am the QSM for a company of about 75 ppl and the question is being raised whether to keep final inspection or completely leave inspection up to the operator. I am looking for some advice. Background: We are amanufacturing company in the trucking industry. What do you think guys?

Welcome to the Cove :D

Whether or not any inspection is done is a function of your confidence in your manufacturing processes. If final inspection is finding significant numbers of nonconforming conditions, then it's probably not a good idea to stop doing it until your processes are better controlled and more predictable. On the other hand, if the number of problems discovered by final inspection is insignificant (using your own criteria for what's significant and what isn't), and you're only doing it because you always have, then it's probably safe to stop doing it.

It might not be a good thing to stop abruptly, however. You might want to phase it out over a defined period of time in order for everyone to get used to the idea. You should also have a plan for what the final inspectors are going to do once there's no final inspection to do anymore. The best strategy is usually redeployment rather than termination--you can probably use those experienced people in improvement and prevention activities.

That is why it is refered to as a quality system. If you have the system and culture in place to suport self inspection then there is no reason to not go down this path. This follows the phlosophy change from Quality control ( inspectin of the good fromthe bad) to Quality assurance( validating that the system is in place and works).
I would phase it in and let the results determine how far it goes. This will allow for adjustment based on changes in personel and culture over time.
:2cents:

I think the whole idea in Lean is to build quality into our processes so we can minimize or totally eliminate non-value added (waste) ativities like inspection.
I agree that it will take time to perhaps train and implement a system that will allow this to happen.

Thanks a lot fellas. We are already implementing lean manufacturing methods and will probably gradually phase out the final inspection process.

just a thought that came to mind...sometimes I let my mind out for short periods of time, unattended...see what happens?

Is final inspection necessary? Yes, there needs to be some sort of inspection/verification SOMEWHERE to ensure that customer requirements are met.

Does final inspection have to take place as a separate activity after all other activities are completed and prior to packaging/shipping? No, at least not if you can show that your in-process activities can prevent nonconforming material from being sent to the customer without some sort of positive recall process in place.

You cannot inspect quality into the product. Your goal should always be to produce defect free product, with inspection being a secondary activity.

Whether or not any inspection is done is a function of your confidence in your manufacturing processes. If final inspection is finding significant numbers of nonconforming conditions, then it's probably not a good idea to stop doing it until your processes are better controlled and more predictable. On the other hand, if the number of problems discovered by final inspection is insignificant (using your own criteria for what's significant and what isn't), and you're only doing it because you always have, then it's probably safe to stop doing it.I agree with this line of thought Jim, but, you are assuming that the final inspection is effective in catching problems. I would add that product performance after delivery, criticality and risks involved should also be part of the mix here.

The goal should always be to eliminate/minimize inspection at all stages. But RISK needs to be considered.

Imagine how you would feel sitting in an airplane taxing for take off and the pilot announces over the PA:

"Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. This is your Captain Billy Bob, from the cockpit. Thanks for flying the friendly skies with us today. You should be happy to know that you are flying in a spanking new aircraft. This is the very first flight of this brand new Embraer RJ190. I want to share with you that our good friends at Embraer have implemented manufacturing and assembly processes so robust that they don't do ANY inspection whatsoever of the aircraft. Isn't that something? :cool: Golly....

Final inspection will keep you from sending a bad product to your customers.
Finding discrepancies at final inspection tells you your process is probably out of control, and it is too late at that point.

It is way more important to plan ahead of the process and leave the operator as little chance as possible of error. Do you trust your operators to verify and release product to the customer? It is considered a sin where I work.

My two cents:

I think my response is nested within the posts above, but here it goes anyway. Final Inspection may be necessary if the level of nonconformance is unacceptable from a customer, regulatory or business perspective. A company needs to decide or perhaps justify why inspection is not necessary. As noted above, the process has a lot to do with the final product quality. Here are some questions you might ask yourself –

Is the process validated?
Are process controls in place and effective?
Is the process and product quality predictable?
Are the support processes stable and predictable?

Things should be considered in their totality. If the business is cutting Inspection because it is viewed as unnecessary overhead, then this response is probably irresponsible. If the discussion centers about an initiative such as Lean, then a proper evaluation needs to be performed to decide if inspection is wasteful. Keep in mind that the business conditions are dynamic – e.g. the staff of today may consist of 20+ year veterans set to retire in two years. Will the decision ‘now’ be appropriate in two years (do the support programs and recruiting promise to keep the status quo)? One common thing that I have seen over the years are inspection programs ill suited for what they support (programs are not adequately designed and established). As a result, management gets the wrong impression which in turn, could lead to a wrong decision regarding abandoning or expanding the inspection program.

Back to the group…

Kevin

I am the QSM for a company of about 75 ppl and the question is being raised whether to keep final inspection or completely leave inspection up to the operator. I am looking for some advice. Background: We are amanufacturing company in the trucking industry. What do you think guys?

You have to ask your self some questions here ...
What does the final inspection pick up ?
what happens if these go to the next customer ?
Can these be poka yoked?
let the data do the talking. hence take the actions ..It is common knowledge that inspection is a waste and it should be build into the process but needs to be done so it will not create problems or loss of business...