Certified shipment does it mean every part has to be checked 100%?:(

Danny,

I've never seen this term used -- perhaps you can give us some more info., like what context you have seen it used in, where you have seen it, etc. It might be as simple as a requirement for a Certificate of Compliance with each shipment or it might mean much more. Anyone else familiar with this term?

Mike S. said:

Danny,

I've never seen this term used -- perhaps you can give us some more info., like what context you have seen it used in, where you have seen it, etc. It might be as simple as a requirement for a Certificate of Compliance with each shipment or it might mean much more. Anyone else familiar with this term?

We had a rejection from our customer they want for the next 30 days certified product delivered to their facility.

Danny,

I'm not sure I can be of much help, but I'll try. Is that all they said -- was there any verbal or written explanation as to exactly what they mean by "certified product"? If I were in your shoes I would go back to the customer and ask them exactly what they want. Since there has already been one screw-up, you don't want another misunderstanding making you look worse.

If for some reason you cannot or don't want to ask, my interpretation (guess) would be that they want you or someone else in authority at your company to personally vouch for or "certify" that every shipment meets contract requirements. You can do that however you want (100% test, sampling, SPC, etc.) as long as you are satisfied that the shipment meets requirements and you are willing to put your name/reputation on the line, which means you are also putting your company's name on the line more than ever. Be careful, you don't want to blow this one. Use this as an opportunity to implement a good CA to solve the problem permanently if possible. JMO.

Does this help?

I have never seen an industry definition of Certified Shipment. But, my experience is that when you tag materials Certified it is usually for a repeat noncomformance. You need assurance that when you tag the material that it's good. Unless mandated by your customer, you decide what sampling plan is needed to ensure the defect does not get to the customer, again. It may be a MIL-STD plan, c=0, or 100% inspection. Use whatever is best. For the record when I have been in this situation, rarely has anything outside 100% been effective. Hope this helps and don't forget to fix the fundamental defect when the smoke clears.
;)

........and dont forget, Mr Juran tells us that 100% inspection is only 80% effective.

Hope that helps you sleep soundly at night !

If the customer wants you to certify that the product is 100% defect free I would suggest you run a mile.

If they just want you to certify that the product has been manufactured and checked in accordance with your systems procedures then fine do it (this is the sort of meaningless Certificate of Conformance we often see given out).

M Greenaway said:

........and dont forget, Mr Juran tells us that 100% inspection is only 80% effective.


Assuming that Mr. Juran was not quoted out of context, despite my great respect for the man I have to say that I think such a blanket statement (again, if not taken out of context) is...misleading and innacurate.

Is 100% inspection 100% accurate 100% of the time? No, of course not, nothing is. But sometimes it is 100% accurate, sometimes more or less than 80% correct. It depends on the situation. But to try to scare people by making a blanket statement such as that is just wrong, IMO.

And, let's remember that the red bead experiment is not analogous to every process with problems! But it is worth thinking about when analyzing process problems.

Well perhaps the aerospace industry understand what juran is talking about. Where they have to assure 100% defect free product they often perform 8 times 100% inspection !!

I am not scaremongering, just trying to help the poster keep out of a potentially devastating product liability case.

And in my opinion the red bead experiment is analagous to any problem. Yes it is simplistic and obvious, but the message is that the problems lie in the system, not the operators (not that if you try to get just white beads from a mixed bowl of white and red you have got no chance).

Cheers

M Greenaway said:

And in my opinion the red bead experiment is analagous to any problem. Yes it is simplistic and obvious, but the message is that the problems lie in the system, not the operators (not that if you try to get just white beads from a mixed bowl of white and red you have got no chance).
Cheers

Martin,

Do you really believe that? For "any problem" the system is always at fault? C'mon, gimme a break. If in all your years of experience you never saw a problem that was the operator's fault and not the system IMHO you were looking thru filters in your glasses, because it ain't possible. It just ain't. Not even Deming went that far!

Sorry, but I have a problem with absolutes and the word "always" and its synonyms. In fact, I'd almost go so far as to say something "profound" like "you're always wrong when you say always".
:p

Mike

The system is always to blame in one way or another. People make mistakes, and every problem could be traced to someone making a mistake, however it is the system that allows mistakes to happen. Or in certain cases prevents the processes functioning to required levels.

The only possible exemption form this is if someone willfully neglects to do something, but even then it is part of our system to hire competent people, give them resources, motivate, etc.

If you blame operator error I will guarantee that any action taken on the operator, as opposed to the system, will not result in any improvement of any kind.

Martin,

See, you did it again -- saying "always".

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.:agree:

Anyone else wanna chime in?

Mike,

I have to agree with Martin. As I have noted in other forums here, I no longer accept 'operator error' as a cause of a problem. There is always something in the system that can be done to prevent errors (accidental or not). I believe that is one of the driving reasons behind error proofing in the latest standards (QS, ISO, TS, etc.).
I am not kidding when I say (many years ago) I used to see 'operator fired' as a permanent action to a problem with operator error defined as the cause.

Sorry, but all this sounds much too much like the "it's not my fault" mentality that is becoming way too pervasive in society these days. Always blame the system. A punk murders someone, it's his parents' fault for not taking him to the circus when he was little. A dingbat puts hot coffee between her legs, drives away and spills it on herself, and sues the store for making the coffee hot! I guess NO car crash is EVER the fault of a driver (operator error)? It is ALWAYS "the system" -- i.e. the road is bad, poor signs, defective car, sun in the wrong position in the sky, snow was too slippery????

I'll buy "the system" being at fault sometimes, maybe in companies over half the time, but ALWAYS??? NEVER!!!

JHO. End of rant.