I need to come up with a countermeasure for a decision making process what is acceptable?
Let me give the story behind the question.

During a production run our employees found suspect parts due to our inspection frequency, parts were placed on hold for disposition. Quality looked at the parts, the descrepancy was holes undersize, and deemed parts to be ok. Parts were shipped customer started to build parts and could not use due to undersize holes.

My customer is requesting a countermeasure for this and I am struggling to give him something that he will be satisfied with. Does anyone have any ideas?

Quality looked at the parts, the descrepancy was holes undersize, and deemed parts to be ok. Parts were shipped customer started to build parts and could not use due to undersize holes. My customer is requesting a countermeasure for this and I am struggling to give him something that he will be satisfied with. Does anyone have any ideas?

So why did QA think the undersize holes were OK? What can you do to keep them from making such an incorrect decision in the future? (e.g., is it because the spec is unclear, because they think they have authority to deviate from the spec, they were told to deviate, etc.)

Also, you should have a countermeasure to prevent producing undersize holes in the future.

When a part fails inspection, in my experience a material review board (MRB) is supposed to be used for deciding the parts' next step(s). I say "supposed to" because it hasn't always worked that way; one guy or two would look at it, sometimes decide on his/their own, based on their experience with the customers' requirements, or they would call the customer to ask about it specifically.

Sometimes this little process wouldn't work--and the parts would be returned as no-good.

In that case, as seems apparent with yours, there was no check and balance applied. In a traditional MRB a QA person is joined by engineering and maybe someone to represent the customer's voice if they have that critical information. That sounds cumbersome, and it can be. But so is dealing with this roundy-roundy process of getting it wrong, true?

So the countermeasure would probably be to revisit your MRB process. Did the QA person consult the spec? If so, based on what were the out-of-spec holes deemed acceptable? In a better-represented MRB, these things get asked in real time. At the same time, the causes can get addressed so as to make the MRB less cumbersome by eliminating its need to be held.

I hope this helps.

When a part fails inspection, in my experience a material review board (MRB) is supposed to be used for deciding the parts' next step(s).

I hope this helps.

I am used to the system you talk about in my previous job. It failed as well, and at a stamping facility which is where I am at currently they do not do this. QA person did not visit the spec and did not consult with customer or any one else for that matter. So that will be addressed.

The best action is to stop making bad parts...

A few ideas for the "escape" cause:

This is an example of an intentional action. This can actually be addressed with moderate success probability by training and process compliance monitoring. Explaining to the person what the real procedures are and why they are in place might help. Perhaps this person thought that the Customer's specs were too tight, or that production was too picky or that they could remember what the specs were...

That said a more robust MRB process can also help. Requiring that the specifications and actual measurements be recorded on a rejection documentation. Requiring more than one signature for a "use as is" type of disposition including Customer approval. A true MRB management review of all dispostions on a routine basis to monitor adherance.

Also, you should have a countermeasure to prevent producing undersize holes in the future.:agree1:The best action is to stop making bad parts...:agree1:This is the critical issue here. That is what you should really focus on.
Quality looked at the parts, the descrepancy was holes undersize, and deemed parts to be ok. Parts were shipped customer started to build parts and could not use due to undersize holes.
Does anyone have any ideas?I see that your organization is certified to TS-16949. So, you should have a robust quality system in place. I would ask these "quality" folks whom dispositioned the non-conforming product willy nilly and ask them if they are aware of your quality policy. It might sound trivial, but in my opinion, that is the time when people should really be asked if they are aware of the policy and why would they knowingly ship non-conforming product, without a concession. They are obviously failing to keep the customer in focus and failing to abide by your quality policy which states: XXXXXXXXX is committed to meeting customer requirements and increasing customer satisfaction through continual improvement of its products, services and the quality management system.

And your system also failed to comply with TS clause 8.3.3. non-conforming product was shipped without a concession (which in my opinion is a major transgression) and the customer was not notified that such products were shipped.

I need to come up with a countermeasure for a decision making process what is acceptable?
Let me give the story behind the question.

During a production run our employees found suspect parts due to our inspection frequency, parts were placed on hold for disposition. Quality looked at the parts, the descrepancy was holes undersize, and deemed parts to be ok. Parts were shipped customer started to build parts and could not use due to undersize holes. My customer is requesting a countermeasure for this and I am struggling to give him something that he will be satisfied with. Does anyone have any ideas?


Jennifer has given sound advise here. Apparently in your case the Q/A has the final authority to decide whether a non conformity is passable or not. IMO (and I practice what I preach) the decision to deviate from the specs. should be shouldered by incharges of Production & Q/A and the contact person for the customer, under supervision of atleast one personnel from the management. The team has the responsibility to decide whether the NC may be sent as it is, or the rework will improve it to better acceptance level by the customer.

You might introduce something on similar lines, as a counter measure, to report to your customer.

Hope this helps

Umang :D

:agree1::agree1:This is the critical issue here. That is what you should really focus on.
I see that your organization is certified to TS-16949. So, you should have a robust quality system in place. I would ask these "quality" folks whom dispositioned the non-conforming product willy nilly and ask them if they are aware of your quality policy. It might sound trivial, but in my opinion, that is the time when people should really be asked if they are aware of the policy and why would they knowingly ship non-conforming product, without a concession. They are obviously failing to keep the customer in focus and failing to abide by your quality policy which states: XXXXXXXXX is committed to meeting customer requirements and increasing customer satisfaction through continual improvement of its products, services and the quality management system.

And your system also failed to comply with TS clause 8.3.3. non-conforming product was shipped without a concession (which in my opinion is a major transgression) and the customer was not notified that such products were shipped.Over the years, Cove visitors have vented about production or management folks over-riding quality opinions about whether products are conforming or not. Ultimately, though, it all boils down to:
"What will the customer accept?"
Sidney has repeated the concept I first heard while working in a steel and non-ferrous metal distribution center while on the night shift in 1961 (paying my way through college!):
"Don't ship questionable material unless customer approves in advance IN WRITING!"
Sidney has used the correct term, "concession." Another applicable term is "waiver," but waiver is more often applied to using something equivalent to the original requirement - something like "generic substitute for brand name drug."

In the long run, it is more efficient to get advance permission instead of forgiveness, regardless of any brag you may hear from "hipshooters"

"Don't ship questionable material unless customer approves in advance IN WRITING!"


I like that and will talk with the person that has created this problem. But in the long run it has opened my eyes to the gap that is there and that is only one person is reviewing the product on hold and only that person is making the final decision. :mad:

I will most assuredly use all of this for my countermeasure.

i have also setup the MRB thing when i worked for my previous company. Initially, i put in the Production Manager, Engineering Manager, PMC, and Sales to the MRB meeting every morning for roughly 15 minutes. Very soon it became a painful time for the managers and more and more they became relied on me (Quality) to make the waive-reject decision. Of cause when the risk is considered high, i will bring the issue up to management. No system is perfect and we did make incorrect judgement sometimes. The most important point is to learn from it.

I need to come up with a countermeasure for a decision making process what is acceptable?
Let me give the story behind the question.

During a production run our employees found suspect parts due to our inspection frequency, parts were placed on hold for disposition. Quality looked at the parts, the descrepancy was holes undersize, and deemed parts to be ok. Parts were shipped customer started to build parts and could not use due to undersize holes.

My customer is requesting a countermeasure for this and I am struggling to give him something that he will be satisfied with. Does anyone have any ideas?

A question that also needs to be addressed is: "Has this happened before?"
Because if it has, then you also have a cultural (attitude) issue to deal with.
And this requires immediate management intervention.

Stijloor.

Hi haueyman,

I can totally empathise with your situation, I have worked with automotive stampings and fabrications for many years in the UK. I have seen this all too often where an inspector makes a wrong decision, albeit because they believe it is for the right reasons, and because thay think it's just a tooling hole or they think that the customer will be able to use the part with no problem, or sometimes because thay are being pressured by production people.

It's easy to say "Was the part to specification?" but with metal stampings it is rare to find a part that fully conforms to drawing, it will have been approved by the customer during the pre-production build phase as OK for fit and function.

What I have found useful to aid the decision making process is to visit the customer plant and, with their permission, photograph the part as assembled with every fastener, plastic clip and mating part.
Turn these photo's into simple visual aids so that your people have something to refer to and improve their understanding of your parts function and any important features.

I have found automotive OEM's very responsive to this approach and give their full support.

Sidney has used the correct term, "concession." Another applicable term is "waiver," but waiver is more often applied to using something equivalent to the original requirement - something like "generic substitute for brand name drug."


There are three terms in general use: waiver, deviation and concession. The latter two are generally interchangeable, and may result from either customer or supplier issues. Something has been produced that doesn't meet the specifications, and documentation is issued to allow its use. "Waiver" on the other hand, is generally used to describe a dispensation to deviate from specifications before nonconforming product is produced.

All materials that were shipped to the customer must be recall and replace. The quality person should not only look at the parts, instead the part must be measured if it fits to the customer requirement. If there’s a discrepancy, the customer must be informed and wait for disposition. If the customer still wants to ship the parts even it has a discrepancy, then what you should do is to document the process.
Hope this helps.
Best regards,
raffy:cool:

It's easy to say "Was the part to specification?" but with metal stampings it is rare to find a part that fully conforms to drawing, it will have been approved by the customer during the pre-production build phase as OK for fit and function. .

Yikes, thanks fior the heads up, I'll avoid the stamping industry if and when I go job hunting again.

Seriously, can't there be an attempt at improving the print to include appropriate, meaningful and enforceable tolerances?

Juran? said "tight specs loosely enforced are the death of quality"

Yikes, thanks fior the heads up, I'll avoid the stamping industry if and when I go job hunting again.

Seriously, can't there be an attempt at improving the print to include appropriate, meaningful and enforceable tolerances?

Juran? said "tight specs loosely enforced are the death of quality"

Getting automotive OEM's to change a print can be like banging your head off a wall. A lot of pain and it won't get you anywhere!:lmao:

Getting automotive OEM's to change a print can be like banging your head off a wall. A lot of pain and it won't get you anywhere!
How true.
In another life I was the Systems Eng at a prototype stamping house. What is worse is when they do the first build. Example, you do the front doors and another company does the back doors. For the radius on the rear upper corner you use the + tolerance for smoother radius and easier inner to outer door mating. However, the other company uses the - tolerance for whatever reason. Both sets of doors are within tolerance, but when viewed side by side they are very different. So who gets to change their tooling? On top of that it is probably a "No Cost Change". Meaning, the tooling change cost is on you, even if your parts are to print.