Does anyone know what QS-9000 says about verification of sorted work? I knwo it is zero defects but if it is sorted and certified by an approved supplier, is sampling inspection needed?
I work for an automotive company they sort 100 %to verify corrective action? doe sanyone else do that out there? Feel free to e-mail me

I'd love to answer your question, but maybe some additional information?

Iday - welcome to the cove. We are an approved supplier and we sometimes sort 100% as an interim corrective action.

I can assure you that there are a number of times when 100% is not 100% effective. There are some interesting threads on this here at the cove.

I would never blindly accept a supplier's inspection without verification with my own sampling.

Good to have you with us.

Dave

lday38

Hi Iday,

We, too, 100% inspect when we are in a "containment" mode, typically for visual "nonconformities".

I don't recall anything in QS9000 addressing certification of sorted material and I don't remember seeing it addressed in TS16949 either.

We have used an outside sorting house in the past and had the same results as if we would have performed the sort - "defective" parts still get through.

A lot of our issues are the "onesy-twosy" problems and to do a visual sort for them is not truly effective - but it seems to pacify our customers. A statistically sound sampling plan may not (read: probably won't) catch these problems.

I'm feeling like I'm rambling (a Friday habit) so I'll stop now.

Welcome to the Cove!!

Bill

Thanks everyone for the response. I just love this site.

Anyway they sort 100% for interim action and than sort 100% for verification of the corretcive action. I agree 100%, is not always effective. I beleive in working toward QS9000 registeration, I would have to have a sampling plan. I got the C=0 plan but that goes by AQL levels. The customer wants zero defects. so what aql?
does anyone know another method of sampling? I have thoght about auditing them at a specified frequency by letting another supplier 100% sort? Large cost with this?
I find this kind of verification not very proactive. These are metal stampings by the way.
Thanks again.

Was it Juran who said 100% inspection is 80% effective ?

Bearing this in mind what do you hope to achieve by inspecting batches on receipt that should have been 100% inspected ? If you find a defect does it mean the batch wasnt 100% inspected ? Maybe, maybe not.

No sampling plan will offer assurance that a batch is 100% defect free as the whole concept is based on an acceptable quality level (AQL) of defects.

I would suggest you target your efforts on the causes of the defects, rather than the inspection processes.

I would suggest you target your efforts on the causes of the defects, rather than the inspection processes.

BINGO!!

Bill

I don't necessarily disagree with the above, but... Regardless of what Dr. Juran (whom I highly respect by the way) or anyone else says about 100% inspection, in the real world there are certain times and circumstances when it IS necessary and nothing else will do. Not often, but there are times. I don't think we should issue a blanket condemnation of the practice in all cases, nor should we use it as a long-term replacement or cover-up for neglected or poorly-run processes. JMO.

I thnk the first place to start with is the criticality of your product. If you're making heart pacemakers you cannot afford even 1 defective component. Thus the extent and type of inspection is going to be proportional to the risk involved.

I'm up to my ears with a customer which has started a program where they are now requiring corrective actions for what used to be line accums - the onesie twosies. It was getting to the point of being rediculous. What it boiled down to is we had a meeting and told them we would group like defectives (over 2000 shipping part numbers) and we would not agree to 100% defect free product as that was not how the job was quoted. It was quoted as involving hand operation(s) (metal stamping) and we told them for 100% defect free we would have to go to optical inspection or a poke yoke. The bottom line was: "You want a requote, we'll tell you what it will cost for 100% defect free product". So far we've heard nothing back. We would be looking at new dies in many cases, an increased die PM frequency, a poka yoke inspection system, possibly some robotics, etc., etc.

The folks above are right: 100% inspection by a human will not stop all defectives all the time from getting through.

And I do agree that preventing the problem is the ideal. We all want to do that. But in many cases the reality is that there are many processes out there that simply in real life are not capable of producing 100% defect free parts at a price that is acceptable.

Can you imagine a 100% defect free car? Hmmmmmm? I wonder how much it would cost...

I recently had a 2 month old hard drive die on me...

Pacemakers are expensive for a reason.

I am happy to see repsosnes. Thsi company has an unusaul sitaution where as they are owned by their major customer. We are looking at a electronic eye on in the die on one of the machines. Any way, it is hard to tell the customer it wasnt quoted that way but your right the price should go up.

Just a quick note from a new cove member. Past experience (35+ years in quality) has proven to me that 100% inspection does not quarantee 100% good parts. Keep in mind, that with large quantities of product, 100% inspection is only 85-95% effective. Irregardless of how many times you reinspect the product, you can almost bet that some defective product will escape.

Dear Iday:
I would like to inform you that 85/15 rule clearly applies whenever we use 100% verification with human beings involved. Meaning there is 100% chance that a bad component will pass through. Even though your material is verified by your supplier 100% but it is always better to check them according to your quality plan and then give it to the line. With my minimum experience with DELPHI -india i have seen lot o f this kind of problems. It is always better to set the process right at the supplier end and evn though the supplier is ready to do 100% verification it is better to ensure with your quality plan. After all it is not going to stop your line becos if some bad components enter your line or it escapes to the customer you are guy who is going to be answerable.
Hope this helps
siva