Hello quality professionals

I am just getting started in a career of management in a small machine shop.

There is one thing about my ISO documentation that I haven't yet touched. Inspection and test status, or any provisions regarding the inspection and test part of our service.

I have never worked in a machine shop besides this one and I don't know how to approach it at all.

We do the following: Receive material, machine it on automatics, perform secondary operations, outsource for plating/grinding/heat treating, warehouse & ship.

My questions are: Where would you require inspection? How often? How would you identify parts that have been inspected? Can an machine operator's inspection or sign-off suffice to identify good parts, or for example, is the quality inspector's sign-off required to approve parts for the next operation?

My questions are: Where would you require inspection? How often? How would you identify parts that have been inspected? Can an machine operator's inspection or sign-off suffice to identify good parts, or for example, is the quality inspector's sign-off required to approve parts for the next operation?

1) Incoming inspection of material, sample plan for machine operators, incoming inspection from outsource and final inspection based on a sample plan.

2) Identification would depend on packaging. You can identify bins, stamp boxes, etc. At the screw machine shop I worked at the operators had 2 bins good and bad parts.

3) Yes the operators signature can suffice. What does your control plan state? How is your process set up. You determine what states that a part can move on.

1) Incoming inspection of material, sample plan for machine operators, incoming inspection from outsource and final inspection based on a sample plan.

2) Identification would depend on packaging. You can identify bins, stamp boxes, etc. At the screw machine shop I worked at the operators had 2 bins good and bad parts.

3) Yes the operators signature can suffice. What does your control plan state? How is your process set up. You determine what states that a part can move on.

NUMBER ONE TIP: Keep it simple!
But be sure to inspect what NEEDS to be inspected.

Example:
Incoming - Measure/Verify Material Thickness, Width, Length, Hardness, etc BASED on the customer's, the product's and the company's requirements. If hardness was not a factor why would you want to measure it?

In-Process (1st op, 2nd op, last op...) Based on the individual operation and the part what do you need to verify? If the first step is to trim the part to 5in long, Measure the length. (If you are confident with your incoming inspeciton process, why would you need to re-measure thickness and width?) - Keep it simple - We're slowing working on this concept one part at a time (time permitting).

Make your inspection process fit you company and the parts. If you have a complex part, you may need a complex inspection. If you have a simple part, keep the inspection simple.

Do you have a control plan for each job or "part family" in some type of format? We create a "Job Process Sheet" for each job. This is basically a router which is stapled to the manufacturing drawing that identifies the necessary manufacturing and inspection operations in the order that they shall occure.

At the completion of each operation there is a space for the machinist or inspector to sign and date. This router and print stay with the product throughout manufacturing, thus identifying the inspection and test status of the product. The next operation should not be performed if any of the manufacturing or inspection operations above it have not been initialed and dated.

As far as what and how frequently to inspect, we have to determine that for each job because each job is different from every other one. Some operations may be critical or complex, others routine. This must also be based on the skill level of the person performing the work. However, we do follow some general rules.

For example, if the product is to be heat treated there is always an in-process inspection operation prior to the heat treat operation. For us, heat treat is not usually the last operation. We ID, OD, Surface and Thread Grind to some tight tolerances and must usually finish after heat treat. It is alot less expensive to rework a piece before heat treat than after!

We do not require an inspector sign off at each operation as we are a shop full of skilled tradesman. We require a FPA at certain operations (done by an inspector) for 5 or more pieces. Otherwise, the machinists initial and date at their operations and the inspectors initial and date at their operations.

Hello quality professionals

I am just getting started in a career of management in a small machine shop.

There is one thing about my ISO documentation that I haven't yet touched. Inspection and test status, or any provisions regarding the inspection and test part of our service.

I have never worked in a machine shop besides this one and I don't know how to approach it at all.

We do the following: Receive material, machine it on automatics, perform secondary operations, outsource for plating/grinding/heat treating, warehouse & ship.

My questions are: Where would you require inspection? How often? How would you identify parts that have been inspected? Can an machine operator's inspection or sign-off suffice to identify good parts, or for example, is the quality inspector's sign-off required to approve parts for the next operation?
I'd work with the people that are there who have done this for awhile (I assume this shop has been open prior to your starting there) to determine where inspection steps should be and what the sampling plan(s) should be -- at least as a start.

The operator can certainly act as in-process and final inspector BUT it takes a certain culture for this to work well. I have seen it work very well and I have seen it fail miserably in the exact same industry. By fail miserably I mean lots of rejects intentionally passed on to the next step, and even to the customer, that never should have been passed. Operator self-inspection sounds great, and it can be, but in my experience more places THINK they have the culture for it to work than actually DO have the right culture. However you do it, you must be sure your shipped product is good or else you risk the business.

I couldnt make out if you were in the automotive industry or not, but a lot of tools are applicable to any manufacturing industry.

3 basic steps I would recommend are

1) Flowchart your manufacturing process.
2) Do a process FMEA to identify danger points.
3) Develop a Control Plan to enforce controls to eliminate the dangers.

There is lots of good info here on this site.

Attached is one format of a process flow.

As for inspection, you could do sample inspection on a batch from each machine, or if you are brave & the process is suitable run SPC on each machine & consider the lot passed if the process is very capable.

Or do away with inspection & Poka Yoke your way along if possible. I wish I could.........

wow

thank you for all your replies. I wrote you all a nice letter about the whole thing but something happened to my computer.

maybe it's better if I just ask, is it necessary to have a control plan for every part? only the parts that put us at tier 3 to chrysler through this one company actually require any AIAG stuff. I only have to do a PPAP about once a month.

we have process travellers that state the operations performed on each bin of parts, the next process, and the routing. there is no provision for a required inspection on it, and I would redo the whole thing for the sake of clarity and content.

ideally and on parts not requiring any AIAG regulation, could the process traveller suffice? it seems easy to make a little check box next to each line item saying "inspection required." when we fill one of these travelers out for a new job, we'd checkmark the final inspection and any other points where inspection would be required. if no checks but final inspection, inspection would proceed according to the standard sample plan. if checkmarks, sign-off by the quality inspector according to her sample plan. does this seem ok?

wow

maybe it's better if I just ask, is it necessary to have a control plan for every part? only the parts that put us at tier 3 to chrysler through this one company actually require any AIAG stuff. I only have to do a PPAP about once a month.

ideally and on parts not requiring any AIAG regulation, could the process traveller suffice? it seems easy to make a little check box next to each line item saying "inspection required." when we fill one of these travelers out for a new job, we'd checkmark the final inspection and any other points where inspection would be required. if no checks but final inspection, inspection would proceed according to the standard sample plan. if checkmarks, sign-off by the quality inspector according to her sample plan. does this seem ok?

You can get away with generic documents for family parts, especially if you have a large product range from "Pre-ISO" or TS. For proper planning for future products, shouldnt you have to prepare individual documents as per your customer SQA manual?

Another answer I have seen is that the Assessor agreed with the company to have individual documents ready for 25 old products by the time of the next audit.

atetsade -

I guess when you said "job shop", I assumed you did not run production quantities. Quantity runs for us might be as many as 150-200 pcs. The traveler/router I described above works for us, it is our control plan, product identification, and status all in one. It may not work for you.

What exactly do you make? Are you automotive? I had worked in production car parts most of my adult life. The 6 years prior to my current job, it was prototype sheetmetal car parts. Now I've worked in the machine tool industry for the last 3 years. At each different type of shop everything was done differently.

Cari & all viewers

I will give you some background.

I work in a 17 employee screw machine shop with 35 Brown & Sharpes and 5 multi-spindle New Britians. We have one Daewoo PUMA 10HC, and I hope to make its first parts on it this weekend. I busted the main breaker on it two days ago. Not to knock S. Korea quality, since I had to crank on it pretty hard.

Thank you all for your replies and help. This is amazing. It gives me great confidence to have a resource such as this forum. Amazing. I'm a full subscriber and will be for a while. I hope to become a contributor soon!

We produce parts in runs usually numbering 1000-5000 pieces. 75000 piece orders occasionally, and one job that makes a little 1/4" retainer cup in six seconds runs 8 hours a day continually.

Automotive (tractor, truck) are probably 3% of what we make. Seldom do we make a part that is not functional in some form, the exception being the rare knob or ubiquitous custom spacer job. Lots of odd fasteners and such, a part to fit an explosion-proof alarm box, very very diverse products.

I'm planning on setting up a control plan system and re-writing the job information each time we set up a job. We now have six different style brown & sharpes which each have different setups themselves. three different types of multi-spindle machines, and a CNC.

I'd like to see three different information sheets made well. Useful. The three machine types will be covered entirely, and these will be living documents that are filled out with recommendations at the end of the job by the people who ran the job. I will then confer with the expert and make the changes to the setup sheet.

As well as this, I would sincerely like to create an AIAG control plan and FMEA for each part.

I'm young. This company has been around for 25 years, and for the next 25 it is mine. I want to do the work and be a modern American company doing it the way it used to be done. TS-16949 could obstacle an opportunity at any time and I don't want to be ill-prepared.

What do I need to do to accomplish my documentation desires? I can do the job sheet and job engineering. I want to do something about the inspection control. We depend on our hard-*** Army Reservist inspector for all of quality control. She is good. I want to utilize her as a quality manager and I want to utilize the culture of accountability and excellence that is becoming powerful with our machinists.

We make a lot of parts and we have very few quality issues. Our company should continue depending on expertise, but provide ways to eliminate their busy human error.

How will I determine a sample plan for a part?

Will 75,000 pieces in one lot, one shipment---use a lot number?

What is the simplest way to measure process capability? We're checking parts informally. The quality manager checks every operation once an hour. if they're not right we hold them for rework. We never ship nonconforming unless the customer is more picky than we were, and she is picky. / The reason I want to know process capability of operations is to determine a sample plan that will serve as a guideline for the management. When we initiate a job, we will use the guidelines of our process capabilities to determine the sample plan. The CNC has no problem making threads. The Brown & Sharp single spindle turret automatics that are driven by cams.. it takes skill to get shiny and comfortable-to-grip threads out of them.

If I go AIAG on all of it, excluding SPC & gage capability, how will this prove an advantage to the process?

One option to consider, since you make short runs of many various parts, is to consider pre-control for your in-process "inspection" and control and maybe even final inspection depending on your people and culture. Very easy to use, but statistically powerful and well-suited IMO to short production runs of various parts. If you want to have a "final inspection", at least for awhile, or for randon checks to keep people on their toes, you could use an AQL plan. If your customers are currently happy you're doing something right. There are many options for # of samples, OC curves/confidence of the sample, etc. that surely you can find one (or several) to suit your needs and they too can be relatively simple to follow, especially if you ignore the "switching" parts which I would recommend.

JMO.

We depend on our hard-*** Army Reservist inspector for all of quality control. She is good. I want to utilize her as a quality manager and I want to utilize the culture of accountability and excellence that is becoming powerful with our machinists.

How's this for coincidence - for two years (1991 & 1992) I was an inspector at a screw machine shop. I also did a lot of the secondary bench operations and ran their chuckers. They had two buildings, they ran New Britains(sp?) at one facility and Davenports at the other.

During this period I was an Army Reservist. SGT. Trombley - E5, Carpentry & Masonry SGT for the Repair & Utility Section of the 301st MP EPW (Enemy Prisoner of War Camp) out of Inkster MI. We held Iraqi prisoners during Desert Storm. This screw machine shop is where I started working right after I got home from Saudi Arabia. (I've since married and become Spears, I used my maiden name throughout my military service.) I did not re-enlist after my six years as I had started a family and a lot of my priorities changed. I ended my military service in 1995.

Anyway, FWIW, this is how they did it back then. They ran mass production quantities in batches. When a machinist set up for the job, he went to the tool crib and got all of the job specific tooling - every job number had a bin in the tool crib - the tool crib attendant was responsible for maintaining the job bins.

An inspector gave first piece approval - 6 pcs 100% inspected. These were kept in a tiny pan with a FPA tag at the machine. The machinist usually kept it on his bench. The FPA is signed off by the inspector.

As the machinist fills up bins, he would place another tiny pan with a product id tag and 6 pcs in it for the inspector for in-process inspection. He numbered the bins in the order that they were run (on the tag). This is how they eliminated having to sort a whole run, they only had to sort where the problem began and later.

The machinist is responsible for checking his own work in accordance with the engineering drawing (the only real work instruction necessary due to the fact that they were all skilled tradesmen - rookies go through an apprenticeship with experienced machinists). Since the machinist has to do this in order to determine tool wear anyway, we did not feel that the machinists in-process inspection results needed to be documented, he initialed the tag in the little pan and also put the machine number. The 6 pcs in the pan were inspected in accordance with the drawing as well. This was also not documented - what I mean to say is that the actual dimensions were not written down on some in-process inspection sheet, the inspector simply signed off on the bin on the tag. Secondary operations were FPA'd and inprocess inspected in the same manner.

At the end of the run, and after parts washing and any outside processes (thread sealant, heat treat, plating), a 100% final inspection report was documented utilizing the sampling requirements dictated by the customer. In the absence of customer dictated sampling plans, we pulled 1-2 random pcs from each bin of the run. All the bins are the same size, but not all the parts, so some jobs we pulled 1 pc from each bin and others we pulled 2 pcs. (This also satisfied the QS9000 dock audit requirements at the time).

Once that run was completed, the job tooling bin went back to the tool crib until the next time it was scheduled to run, and the machinist pulled the next job scheduled for his machine and started all over again.

Does this resemble the way your company does it? We only did the control plan once for each job, when we first got the contract and prepared PPAP's. Then we ran the job for years under blanket PO's with release schedules. Do you run repeat orders, or do you run the job and its done and on to the next? If the latter is more the case, then I would suggest "part family" FMEA's and control plans.

Wow, I shouldn't have had that third cuppa - I'm more longwinded than usual!!

Sums up what we use to do. The only other item I would mention is that the operators also kept an X-bar & R chart to show the run. :smokin:

Sums up what we use to do. The only other item I would mention is that the operators also kept an X-bar & R chart to show the run. :smokin:

I should mention that the FPA and inprocess inspection quantity of six was because they were six spindle machines.

Just a couple of ideas.

Your a very small shop, so a very simple method can be used for indication of inspection status and for identifying points for inspection..

Note them on your job router with a sign off for inspection...kill 2 birds with the single pebble.

Carol

Thank you for all of your responses and detailed responses providing background and information.

I'm asking you now for further advice on organization and labeling of product and inspection status.

When we have a bucket full of parts, they are identified by a product traveller. This bucket will go to parts cleaning after first operations and that bucket of parts will remain together. Any second operations will be performed, and this sometimes mixes the entire production run together as in a rock shaker. Literally. Especially with third party outsourced operations, treatments, etc.

All of our production traveller sheets get put together and we lose the lot separation.

My question is about these lots. In runs of 75,000 max pieces, do you see a need to break up the run into lots? Is it advisable?

If not, what do we do with our completed job traveller/inspection requirement/inspection status/product identification sheets?

All of our production traveller sheets get put together and we lose the lot separation.

My question is about these lots. In runs of 75,000 max pieces, do you see a need to break up the run into lots? Is it advisable?


For your business, is it necessary to break up the runs? Do you need to maintain tracability back to the original raw material? My guess is no, since you already combine the travelers together.

If not, what do we do with our completed job traveller/inspection requirement/inspection status/product identification sheets?

Will you need to retrieve the information at a later date? If so, you need to keep theses as "records". Our traveler (we call it a router) contains our inspection results, so they are treated as records and maintained as such.

Hope this helps a bit.

Regards,
CarolX

Apparently you do not need traceability back to raw material. If you make sure every lot going into the mix is first approved in all ways up to that point, mixing should not be a problem. If you want some limited traceability you could list the lots that went into one "mix" and assign the mix a new lot number. For example lot 100, 101, 102, 103 are all individually inspected and deemed good up to that point. Now, another process needs to be performed and you mix these 4 lots together for the new process, you could call the mix of those 4 lots lot 104, and attach all prior inspection sheets to the paperwork for lot 104. Just one option.

No apparently about it Mike.

Traceability to raw material is only a requirement where terms of a contract specify it as such.

Internal controls on traceability are only there to aid positive identification to take effective containment action in the event of a problem. The looser the controls the wider the containment action would have to be. If your product is low risk/value then maybe you neednt have traceability whatsoever.

No apparently about it Mike.

Traceability to raw material is only a requirement where terms of a contract specify it as such.

Internal controls on traceability are only there to aid positive identification to take effective containment action in the event of a problem. The looser the controls the wider the containment action would have to be. If your product is low risk/value then maybe you neednt have traceability whatsoever.

Well...not exactly.

It is possible that the terms of the contract require it but the company is not doing it (purposefully or by oversight). Also, a company may specify in their own internal procedures that they shall maintain traceability but they are violating their own procedures and not doing it. While I doubt that is the case, 'tis why I said "apparently".

Also, I think there are other reasons for maintaining traceability than just for containment reasons in the event of a problem.

JMO.

I have no problem having traceability on every part back to barstock supplier.

I'd like to go further and use lot numbers to separate parts made on a certain day from parts made on another day. This might have to wait until things settle down!

Change is a limited resource sometimes, and you've got to use it sparingly.

Well, to clarify, I think that being able to trace back to the material certification for each part made is plenty traceability for now. It's all that is required of us regarding that. Lots will be viewed from the eyes of continual improvement.

This afternoon I will be printing the job routers on green. They include identification, material supplier(s) (which is Supplier and Date Recieved, which is how we file the certs), Then the order of operations with a box to indicate required inspection, and what inspection type.

So at one glance you can see that the Operation is 10. Turn it over and you see that this means Machine to spec 1st operation. Before you can move to 11, you've got to have a certain inspection signed off if indicated. The first operation 10 on a simple part with ample tolerances would fall under Inspection type C, which is the standard once an hour sample plan.

This gets filled out on the first parts router before the job goes out for setup. Subsequent routers are filled out by the QA.

Is there anything else I can accomplish with this router that I might want to include?