A comapny gets 1 palette with 10 crates of screws from their customer.

They also get a work order... though this might be verbal.

The customer wants the screws controlled to make sure the screw heads are not defect.

The company does not have a procedure for the inspection, as this work is ad hoc.

Can the company write the work requirement on the work order and stick a copy of that in the creates with the screws?

And... does each create need a copy of the work order to say, in effect, create 1 of 10, or can a palette have one work order with the work instruction to cover all ten crates on the palette?

Thanks

Well - I can see the benefits and deficits of both systems and Im not sure there is a right and wrong.

You obviously need instructions to ensure the work is carried out to the required standard.
If you only create one instruction, in crate one, you have more control of the paperwork...people cant scurry off with it and produce it at a later date when it is now obsolete, but you cant guarantee that every crate will be checked to the one piece of paper.

It really depends on who in the company is overseeing the checking process - you need a contact that will take direction from the customer and ensure communication of that direction.

Personally I would do what you know will work best between the customer and supplier...

Sorry if its not a definitive answer - hope it will be of some small use to you

:confused:

A comapny gets 1 palette with 10 crates of screws from their customer.

They also get a work order... though this might be verbal.

The customer wants the screws controlled to make sure the screw heads are not defect.

The company does not have a procedure for the inspection, as this work is ad hoc.

Can the company write the work requirement on the work order and stick a copy of that in the creates with the screws?

And... does each create need a copy of the work order to say, in effect, create 1 of 10, or can a palette have one work order with the work instruction to cover all ten crates on the palette?

ThanksIt took me several readings, but I think I see the situation:

customer supplied product (a pallet of crates of screws)
a work order accompanies the screws defining a "service" to be applied to screws (like plating or tumbling for burrs?)
An adjunct to the work order is that customer wants supplier to perform an inspection on the screws before they go to the next step in the supply chain to assure screws with defective heads are eliminated from the cargo.
Simple answer: One Purchase Order or one work order should be all that is necessary for the entire pallet of crates of screws. If the supplier can't be trusted to keep the order straight (including the inspection), it probably shouldn't have the contract in the first place.

If the supplier is willing to accept responsibility for the ad hoc (an additional service ONLY applied to this shipment) requirement of inspection and subsequent sorting in addition to any other service on the screws, it does require a formal procedure agreed upon with the customer. (This is a basic part of Contract Review - does supplier have capability and capacity to perform a requested service at the quoted price?) Need I say there should be adequate compensation for this service?

:topic: just out of curiosity, because it is not necessary to the answer, what is the original service the supplier is supposed to apply to the pallet load of screws?
:topic: :topic: "ad hoc" is Latin for "to this" and means
For the specific purpose, case, or situation at hand and for no other: <CITE>a committee formed ad hoc to address the issue of salaries. </CITE>

I went to a company the other day and they invited me to look at their little operation. They perform QA services for some suppliers of small parts to the automotive industry.

While I was in the small work area, I saw a palette with a few crates of screws. The tops of two work area tables also had a couple crates of screws as well. The owner asked me if this practice was okay.

My first thoughts were that everything needed to have positive identification... meaning that EACH create needed identification as to the customer, content, service required, etc.

The second observation I had was that the inspection to be conducted was not documented... not even on the work order. The inspection criteria were verbal between the owner of the QA company and the automotive supplier.

My inclination was that each create needed an ID. Second choice was that at least the palette have an ID.

Since the company had no work procedure for inspecting the screw heads... and it is hard to argue that you really need such a work procedure ( dah! ) I said that the customer requirement on a copy of the purchase/work order located on the palette or optimally in each crate would be enough.

I hope this gives a little better clarification.

Do we need a work procedure? Or can we put the requirement on the work order?

Do we need positive identification on/in each create? Or can we label the palette?

Thanks for any help and your opinions.

If I understand the question it is very much like some of our inspection processes. I think the single identification of the "lot" is fine as long as there is no crate specific lot control requirement. That is to say if they are all the same lot and it doesn't matter if each crate is mixed, one set of documents is fine. Even if they were each a seperate lot, they could share a common document as long as the documentation for each lot was recorded seperately on the common document. The accept/reject criteria must be known and a work instruction is the best way to define it but it could be part of a computer program (vision system sort) or some other form. I have seen a sort of "poster" at the sort station showing what to look for at manual inspection stations.

The inclusion of the instructions on the PO would be fine as long as the instructions stayed in the sort area. If they were moved away, I can see a problem. One other thought which may raise some discussion is that not all inspection needs a written work instruction. If the process is consistant and the inspectors are thouroughly trained, it could be argued that there is no need for individual work instructions.

JMHO

Dave

If I understand the question it is very much like some of our inspection processes. I think the single identification of the "lot" is fine as long as there is no crate specific lot control requirement. That is to say if they are all the same lot and it doesn't matter if each crate is mixed, one set of documents is fine. Even if they were each a seperate lot, they could share a common document as long as the documentation for each lot was recorded seperately on the common document. The accept/reject criteria must be known and a work instruction is the best way to define it but it could be part of a computer program (vision system sort) or some other form. I have seen a sort of "poster" at the sort station showing what to look for at manual inspection stations.

The inclusion of the instructions on the PO would be fine as long as the instructions stayed in the sort area. If they were moved away, I can see a problem. One other thought which may raise some discussion is that not all inspection needs a written work instruction. If the process is consistant and the inspectors are thouroughly trained, it could be argued that there is no need for individual work instructions.

JMHO

Dave
The first thing that strikes me with the additional information is that it appears the "sorting" company is doing "grunt work" because the customer has a suspect batch of screws. (Is this what SSwanson meant by "ad hoc?")

In which case, the term "controlled" in SSwanson's first post was misleading.

I presume (since customer and inspection shop were comfortable with verbal) the pass/fail criteria is relatively straightforward 100% sort for visual attributes [heads on? If yes, do they have slot?] I doubt they are even sorting for burrs, since those could be ameliorated with a tumbling process at much lower fee than hand sort.

My only concern would be in handling, segregating nonconforming material.

Since we are told the operation normally does QA services, my guess is the routine work instructions for handling ANY material are probably adequate.

Were there any products in range NOT from this batch - pallet? If not, then probably no chance of mixing, ergo no further labeling required. Customer would have labeled separately if segregation per crate were required.

:topic:
Not my idea of ideal inspection, but I spent too much time in an environment that required tolerances to +0.0005/-0.0000.

Over the weekend, I visited a neighbor who happened to be having a deck installed. The installer "routinely" had a small plastic bucket where he threw deck screws that didn't meet his personal criteria for use. It never occurred to me to ask what his criteria were, nor to question the adequacy of his source of supply.

My neighbor was content;
the installer was working at a good pace;
the neighbor and I went about our business which was for me to retrieve my tree-trimming pole saw he had borrowed the previous weekend.
Probably how I would have considered the sort operation if I had been there - adequate for the purpose.