What is the intent of section 4.13.2.1 Prioritized Reduction Plans: a) when multiple nonconforming product exists to quantify and prioritize which items are attended to first, OR b) to quantify nonconforming product Pareto style and set priorites as to reducing nonconformances by type (e.g. 75% are for undersize condition, 20% for oversize condition, 5% for orientation).

I thought I knew this but I have now heard it explained both ways. Which way is the correct interpretation?

Jim

I think they go hand in hand. Once you prioritize by part number you need to define what aspects are causing the dropout (scrap). This would typically be done with a Pareto, C, or U chart. The type of chart would depend on your company and what works for you.

The type of thought process defined by Ford QOS methodology. I think there are some QOS posts in the FTP section in the Cove.

ASD...