The questions in this post will be based on a manufacturing (precision machining) operation that currently is not working to a specific QMS. Looking more for effectivity in reducing non-conforming work than adherance to any "system"

That said. here is the situation: At this point, all work found to be non-conforming (from any point in the manufacturing process) is imediately forwarded to an MRB area. Unfortunately, the amount of non-conforming product is excessive :mad: Manufacturing management has recently begun making changes to how non-conforming work is handled/flows in an effort to improve the efficiency of dealing with non-conforming product.

I (acting as Quality Manager) am all for increasing efficiency. The problem arose where some of the things that were done in the name of efficency, by Manufacturing Manager, eluded some important steps in the material review process. Some of the areas of concern with the new, "more efficient" non-confomring work flow were: not capturing any data on the fact that the non-conformance occurred or the responsible process and dispositioning of product by un-qualified personnel etc.

Now for some questions -

What is the consensus on minimum data collection requirement on the occurance of a non-conformace?

There seems to be a propensity towards "throwing over the wall" of non-conforming material to MRB; Is there any pitfalls to not accepting lots of mixed product? In other words demanding that all non-conforming work sent to MRB be completely sorted at the point of production before moving.

Probably a no-brainer but- In a specific department that is having problems with non-conformances, it has been proposed that a full-time inspector is needed to catch bad work at the source; It is my position that an inpector would be counter-productive to the improvement process, it would be better to focus more engineering effort on the department in order to increase the capability of the processes. Your thoughts?

I am trying, for my own development, to become more active in this forum so expect to see more from me real soon! -Techrat

techrat:

Welcome!

I am not an expert in that type of production environment, but to me, if the amount of nonconforming product is "excessive", to the point that it is taxing your system's ability to handle it, there is but one course of action - reduce the amount of nonconforming product.

That said, how does one go about reducing nonconforming product? Why, there has to be some guidance concerning just where the nonconformances happen. How is this done? Measurement.

If I read your scenario correctly, your company may be headed into a deadly spiral where more and more nonconforming product is made (and paid for by the company) while less and less is known about where and why the problems begin. Not a good position to be in.

Maybe you could look at what measurements remain, and use those to uncover the "vital few" sources of problems to attack. Or, come up with a new measurement that captures the culprit processes.

JMHO.

Good luck!!!

Craig H.

Dear Techrat:

This is just a dmub question:

forwarded to an MRB area.

What is MRB? By the way, your post illustrates exactly what happens when people try to get efficient, without realizing that we must "idiot proof" everything. It is OK to eliminate steps, but "Idiot Proof" it still must be. If not the eliminated steps will eventually lead to the difficulties that you are now facing. Good luck.

Charmed :)

P. S. This is a general request. I often see posters using acronyms but we cannot assume that every one knows every acronym. May I humbly suggest that they be spelled out in full, at least when used for the first time, in a post. It would really help me at least. :thanx:

The questions in this post will be based on a manufacturing (precision machining) operation that currently is not working to a specific QMS. Looking more for effectivity in reducing non-conforming work than adherance to any "system"

That said. here is the situation: At this point, all work found to be non-conforming (from any point in the manufacturing process) is imediately forwarded to an MRB area. Unfortunately, the amount of non-conforming product is excessive :mad: Manufacturing management has recently begun making changes to how non-conforming work is handled/flows in an effort to improve the efficiency of dealing with non-conforming product.

I (acting as Quality Manager) am all for increasing efficiency. The problem arose where some of the things that were done in the name of efficency, by Manufacturing Manager, eluded some important steps in the material review process. Some of the areas of concern with the new, "more efficient" non-confomring work flow were: not capturing any data on the fact that the non-conformance occurred or the responsible process and dispositioning of product by un-qualified personnel etc.

Now for some questions -

What is the consensus on minimum data collection requirement on the occurance of a non-conformace?

There seems to be a propensity towards "throwing over the wall" of non-conforming material to MRB; Is there any pitfalls to not accepting lots of mixed product? In other words demanding that all non-conforming work sent to MRB be completely sorted at the point of production before moving.

Probably a no-brainer but- In a specific department that is having problems with non-conformances, it has been proposed that a full-time inspector is needed to catch bad work at the source; It is my position that an inpector would be counter-productive to the improvement process, it would be better to focus more engineering effort on the department in order to increase the capability of the processes. Your thoughts?

I am trying, for my own development, to become more active in this forum so expect to see more from me real soon! -Techrat
Use the inspector to help gather data, develop pareto charts and cause and effect diagrams. Then determine the root cause. So much for the company not wanting to adhere to a system.:magic::2cents:

techrat,
I agree with Greg, how do you know unless you measure? Having said that I have experienced first hand the dreaded "MRB (Material Review Board) mindset";ie "send everything to MRB". I might add that we already had 100% inspection and even the inspectors would send to MRB when they very well good have issued a "rework to drawing" work order citing the OOT (out of tolerance) and what needed to be done.

When every thing goes to MRB then MRB becomes a bottle neck! Bear in mind at that point in time we had on board Government inspection who loved MRB and played it to the hilt in terms of corrective action (nothing left MRB without Corrective Action!

However, management did a study and determined it took up to 3 weeks to get from the manufacturing area to MRB and took 26 signatures to close out the NCR (non-conformance report) in order to get the item back out of MRB.

My point is that a full time inspector might be the answer to put out the fire while management determines how to improve the process.

it has been proposed that a full-time inspector is needed to catch bad work at the source;
Does this mean that the non-conforming product is a finished component when it is found? If so who determines if the part is OK / NG and how do they determine this?

Using an inspector, short term to pareto which operations are the cause of the non-conformities is a positive step as you’ll identify which operations give you the most problems, you can then work to address these. Identify the root cause and put in place corrective / preventative actions to stop reoccurrence.

Another option to consider is to give the operators the tools (gauges / measuring equipment) to inspect their own work, by doing this you should locate the issues at source. You’ll soon find out who’s producing the rejects when some operations are waiting for parts. If you’ve got issues with manufacturing this is a potential way to get the problem process highlighted and resolved as no one in production likes to see downtime for any reason.

Couple of items to throw out in light of the responses:
First off, my use of MRB acronym was intended to refer to Material Review Board- I will try to be explicit in the future.

Also, I felt it was important to note that currently, the non-conformances are already being identified at the point of production. Also, it is our policy that the "owner" of the process (usually an operator or set-up person) is responsible for the quality output from their process.

I will further clarify by saying that sending product to MRB becomes an easy out for the process "owner" for bad work because of "out of sight=out of mind". Often times, bad product reaching MRB at this point is mixed with good product at staggering ratios (i.e. 2 bad pcs out of a sample size of 25, in a lot size of 2500).

A position that I am considering taking on this issue is that the process "owner" is responsible for sorting this work before it is passed off. At that point, only the 100% non-conforming product gets into MRB and needs to be dealt with. The bennefit that I am expecting to get from this is an immediate desire, on the part of the process "owner" to fix the process . The side bennefit of course is the reduced number of occurances of product at MRB that is dispositioned to sort as the sorting would already be taken care of.

A few additional pcs. of info:

The process "owners" are all equiped with the tools/gages to identify non-conforming product already.

My original comment regarding the fact that we are not working within the constraints of a QMS was meant to avoid responses like "QS9000 ......requires this or that. The fact is that we do work to a specific quality system of our own design and do desire/intend to become compliant with some of the well known quality systems.

Lastly, the production environment produces precision metal component parts for a large array of different customers with different requirements. The processes see as many as 10 set-up changes per week and the ultimate decision on usability/disposition of non-conforming product is made by a range of "experts" within our organization often including the customer.

Hope some of the added information helps clear up the picture I am trying to paint! -Techrat

Dear Techrat:

Thanks for clearing up some more things about what is going on. MRB if it stand for Materials Review Board (and not simply Materials Rework Bay!) suddenly frightening to me. This is the highest kind of bureaucracy I can think of. Please, consider a name change for this acronym. Now, a few points.

***********
Also, I felt it was important to note that currently, the non-conformances are already being identified at the point of production. Also, it is our policy that the "owner" of the process (usually an operator or set-up person) is responsible for the quality output from their process.

This is good news. It helps track the problem to the source.

******************

I will further clarify by saying that sending product to MRB becomes an easy out for the process "owner" for bad work because of "out of sight=out of mind". Often times, bad product reaching MRB at this point is mixed with good product at staggering ratios (i.e. 2 bad pcs out of a sample size of 25, in a lot size of 2500).

This is not good news. More later.

*****************

A position that I am considering taking on this issue is that the process "owner" is responsible for sorting this work before it is passed off. At that point, only the 100% non-conforming product gets into MRB and needs to be dealt with. The bennefit that I am expecting to get from this is an immediate desire, on the part of the process "owner" to fix the process . The side bennefit of course is the reduced number of occurances of product at MRB that is dispositioned to sort as the sorting would already be taken care of.

Good idea to get the "owner" to fix the problem and take care of nonconformance. Give me a minute, though.

********************

A few additional pcs. of info:

The process "owners" are all equiped with the tools/gages to identify non-conforming product already.

Why isn't rework, if possible being done, instead of sending to MRB?

*********************

My original comment regarding the fact that we are not working within the constraints of a QMS was meant to avoid responses like "QS9000 ......requires this or that. The fact is that we do work to a specific quality system of our own design and do desire/intend to become compliant with some of the well known quality systems.

Lastly, the production environment produces precision metal component parts for a large array of different customers with different requirements. The processes see as many as 10 set-up changes per week and the ultimate decision on usability/disposition of non-conforming product is made by a range of "experts" within our organization often including the customer.

This illustrates the "complexity" of the process and shows that much work must be done to "fix" these problems once and for all.

*************************

Personally, I think, a major overhaul of how you run this precision metal component production is required. If there are as many as 10 set up changes per week, it is INEVITABLE that mistakes will occur. Absolute IDIOT PROOFING is required. I do not know the skill levels of the operators, but a great deal of cooperation from everyone up and down the line is needed. First, finger pointing will not do. Something tells me this may be going on. If you are sincere about resolving this and making this into a high quality operation, finger pointing must stop.

Call everyone involved for an extended meeting. Get inputs from all levels. You will be surprised how much people know. May be it is the culture that needs to change here. You can be a real catalyst for this change. This is a great opportunity for you to show your leadership skills and your technical skills as well. That's how I would go about it. Everyone must be heard and everyone must work together. Good luck.

Charmed :)


P. S. In case I did not make it clear, please remember that INSPECTION is considered to be a non-value added step. The better your process becomes, the fewer the inspection steps that would be required. How do you make the process better? It starts from what you are calling step-up changes, as many as 10 per week. It is this step that must be performed meticulously, with due diligence, and without necessarily paying attention to the clock (in other words, doing it RIGHT, not do it QUICK, producitivity of the set up operation is something that we can worry about later). Other things will follow. Do consult everyone up and down the line and get everyone to "buy into" the changes that are no doubt needed.

The questions in this post will be based on a manufacturing (precision machining) operation that currently is not working to a specific QMS. Looking more for effectivity in reducing non-conforming work than adherance to any "system"

That said. here is the situation: At this point, all work found to be non-conforming (from any point in the manufacturing process) is imediately forwarded to an MRB area. Unfortunately, the amount of non-conforming product is excessive http://elsmar.com/Forums/images/smilies/ranting.gif Manufacturing management has recently begun making changes to how non-conforming work is handled/flows in an effort to improve the efficiency of dealing with non-conforming product.

I (acting as Quality Manager) am all for increasing efficiency. The problem arose where some of the things that were done in the name of efficency, by Manufacturing Manager, eluded some important steps in the material review process. Some of the areas of concern with the new, "more efficient" non-confomring work flow were: not capturing any data on the fact that the non-conformance occurred or the responsible process and dispositioning of product by un-qualified personnel etc.

Now for some questions -

What is the consensus on minimum data collection requirement on the occurance of a non-conformace?

There seems to be a propensity towards "throwing over the wall" of non-conforming material to MRB; Is there any pitfalls to not accepting lots of mixed product? In other words demanding that all non-conforming work sent to MRB be completely sorted at the point of production before moving.

Probably a no-brainer but- In a specific department that is having problems with non-conformances, it has been proposed that a full-time inspector is needed to catch bad work at the source; It is my position that an inpector would be counter-productive to the improvement process, it would be better to focus more engineering effort on the department in order to increase the capability of the processes. Your thoughts?

I am trying, for my own development, to become more active in this forum so expect to see more from me real soon! -TechratI actually dote on MRBs. There seems to be a major difference between your opinion/definition of an MRB and my definition. In my shops, same MRB handles ALL "suspect" material, incoming or outgoing. The MRB is omnipotent. No one countermands MRB (but it accepts advice and input from every source it can find.)

In my view, MRB determines (using ALL resources necessary) whether the suspect material is, in fact, non conforming.

If found to be conforming, material proceeds in its normal supply chain, but investigation begins as to WHY material became suspect (do we need to change inspection process or criteria?)
If found to be nonconforming, MRB determines if it is scrap or reworkable. Simultaneously, MRB triggers a Corrective Action/Preventive Action (CA/PA) process.
If necessary, operations are suspended to prevent making more scrap until the CA or PA is in place.

MRB members are multi-disciplinary (engineering, operations, purchasing, sales, management, Quality) - a quorum is necessary for MRB to proceed.

Very good thread, this... Going back to the first post:Unfortunately, the amount of non-conforming product is excessive :mad: Why? As others already pointed out, maybe the previous way of dealing with non-conforming product was perfectly in order... unless forced to deal with excessive amounts of non-conforming product. The manufacturing process, on the other hand is obviously not. You need to find out why asap. How long has this been going on btw? did it happen suddenly or have things been slowly deteriorating for a long time?
Some of the areas of concern with the new, "more efficient" non-confomring work flow were: not capturing any data on the fact that the non-conformance occurred or the responsible process and dispositioning of product by un-qualified personnel etc.Well, all I an say is that I think he's tinkering with the wrong process...
What is the consensus on minimum data collection requirement on the occurance of a non-conformace?Minimum? Ok, How about:

What is wrong?
When was it found?
Where was it found?
Who found it?
There seems to be a propensity towards "throwing over the wall" of non-conforming material to MRB; Is there any pitfalls to not accepting lots of mixed product? Yes. You still wouldnt know it was mixed before checking it again, and no sorting will ever be 100% effective. Their efforts would probably be better spent first of all correcting the manufacturing process to prevent further mishaps, and then correcting the affected products.
it has been proposed that a full-time inspector is needed to catch bad work at the source; It is my position that an inpector would be counter-productive to the improvement process, it would be better to focus more engineering effort on the department in order to increase the capability of the processes. Your thoughts?If the process has gone awry, it is the process that should be under scrutiny.
I am trying, for my own development, to become more active in this forum so expect to see more from me real soon! -TechratI'm looking forward to it.:agree1:

Also, I felt it was important to note that currently, the non-conformances are already being identified at the point of production. Also, it is our policy that the "owner" of the process (usually an operator or set-up person) is responsible for the quality output from their process.

If the above is the case then there is no need to use an additional inspector. It’s my guess you have one of two things happening.

1) The operators are complacent in their checks and pass poor quality parts down the process.
2) The operators perform their checks and pass parts down the process regardless.

Are the defects you see common and reworkable at source? Can the items be inspected whilst still on the machine that has performed the operation?

A position that I am considering taking on this issue is that the process "owner" is responsible for sorting this work before it is passed off. At that point, only the 100% non-conforming product gets into MRB and needs to be dealt with. The bennefit that I am expecting to get from this is an immediate desire, on the part of the process "owner" to fix the process . The side bennefit of course is the reduced number of occurances of product at MRB that is dispositioned to sort as the sorting would already be taken care of.

IMHO I believe that this will be your best action, this way you prevent parts travelling through the process. This also gives you hard data in terms of station rejects as to which station causes you the most issues. You can Pareto this with ease to monitor over time. So long as you clearly label the reject components with details of the Operators name, process step and reason for reject you will collect enough data within a short space of time to identify is the issue if purely set up, or elated to one or two operators (dependant on job rotation) / operations.



The process "owners" are all equiped with the tools/gages to identify non-conforming product already.

I would guess though that they are not using them given your issues. Have you checked the stance of manufacturing on this? Often quality takes a backseat to quantity. This tends to be the case if your manufacturing department is measured by efficiency. If efficiency is the manufacturing measure, consider proposing that Effectiveness become the measure of the manufacturing department (this takes into account number of good / bad parts, not just quantity produced). You may have difficulty putting this system forward as your manufacturing department may go from looking good to bad in a short period of time.

Hope some of the added information helps clear up the picture I am trying to paint!

Good info

First off, I would like to say thank you for all of your responses. I am glad to see that there is a fair variety of different view points in this group because it allows me to evaluate my position more objectively.
It was also helpful to see some feedback on how I have projected my position i.e. First, finger pointing will not do. Something tells me this may be going on. If you are sincere about resolving this and making this into a high quality operation, finger pointing must stop.

To summarize some of the things that I am taking away from this thread:

The manufacturing process must be improved to "fix" the problem

Analysis based on real data must be used to find the biggest opportunities for improvement.

The manufacturing process must be improved to "fix" problem.

The efforts for improvement must be collateral and include everyone.

I thought that becoming more active in this forum would help me analize situations more thoroughly ...... and I am already reaping the bennefits. -Techrat

I actually dote on MRBs. There seems to be a major difference between your opinion/definition of an MRB and my definition. In my shops, same MRB handles ALL "suspect" material, incoming or outgoing. The MRB is omnipotent. No one countermands MRB (but it accepts advice and input from every source it can find.)

In my view, MRB determines (using ALL resources necessary) whether the suspect material is, in fact, non conforming.

If found to be conforming, material proceeds in its normal supply chain, but investigation begins as to WHY material became suspect (do we need to change inspection process or criteria?)
If found to be nonconforming, MRB determines if it is scrap or reworkable. Simultaneously, MRB triggers a Corrective Action/Preventive Action (CA/PA) process.
If necessary, operations are suspended to prevent making more scrap until the CA or PA is in place.

MRB members are multi-disciplinary (engineering, operations, purchasing, sales, management, Quality) - a quorum is necessary for MRB to proceed.

:topic: Wes, I do agree with all remarks regarding MRB's. I served as QAE on MRB's at Goodyear Aerospace for a number of years; however, I seem to remember a power greater than MRB (God Himself) on all government programs. I believe the title was CPO (Chief Procurement Officer) or something along those lines. This CPO worked directly out of the pentagon as I recall. If this guy wanted something out of MRB he GOT it! He simply signed the Disposition CPO416. 416 could have been any number depending on the program.

Ring any bells?

The manufacturing process must be improved to "fix" the problem

Analysis based on real data must be used to find the biggest opportunities for improvement.

The manufacturing process must be improved to "fix" problem.

The efforts for improvement must be collateral and include everyone.

-Techrat

Techrat, right on the money! :agree1:

As far as finger pointing goes, that might be one of the hardest to tackle. Suggest you try to make a case to the masses that there is a huge problem, everyone should attack the problem (vs. attacking people with the aforementioned pointed finger), and by working together all of you can figure out what is going on. Above all, you must be the leader in the effort to make this happen. One side effect is that it should become more fun to be working there.

Good luck!!!!

Craig H.

:topic: Wes, I do agree with all remarks regarding MRB's. I served as QAE on MRB's at Goodyear Aerospace for a number of years; however, I seem to remember a power greater than MRB (God Himself) on all government programs. I believe the title was CPO (Chief Procurement Officer) or something along those lines. This CPO worked directly out of the pentagon as I recall. If this guy wanted something out of MRB he GOT it! He simply signed the Disposition CPO416. 416 could have been any number depending on the program.

Ring any bells?
When the General needs his tank or plane, or the Admiral needs his ship, he will get it.

http://elsmar.com/Forums/images/smilies/offtopic-d2.gif Wes, I do agree with all remarks regarding MRB's. I served as QAE on MRB's at Goodyear Aerospace for a number of years; however, I seem to remember a power greater than MRB (God Himself) on all government programs. I believe the title was CPO (Chief Procurement Officer) or something along those lines. This CPO worked directly out of the pentagon as I recall. If this guy wanted something out of MRB he GOT it! He simply signed the Disposition CPO416. 416 could have been any number depending on the program.

Ring any bells?Input from the customer (by accepting/rejecting suspect material when conditions or contract dictate customer should be involved) is actually one of the steps in our MRB flow chart.

One aspect of nonconformance is delivery date delay. Good practice suggests customer be notified of delay and reason. Often a customer desperate for the goods will either ask for representative samples (or send an agent to investigate) and determine whether the shipment is usable for customer's purposes.

Customer always has the right to temporarily (one shipment) or permanently (remainder of order) modify the acceptance criteria for a product or service.

I see this as reinforcing the role of MRB in using ALL resources to determine the final disposition of the product. Thanks for the addition! I may have been uncharacteristically "short-winded" in my original answer!http://elsmar.com/Forums/images/smilies/lmao.gif

In my opinion, you obviously have a system problem. If you really want to have a sustainable fix, you need to involve senior management and inform them of the cost of poor quality and how the excessive nc material is detracting from the company's bottom line. If you can do some quantification, in terms of $ and present it to them, chances are they will provide you the resources to fix the problem.

Remember, the ones with the authority to make decisions want to know if something can either make or save them money.

It looks like you have a wonderful scenario to save your organization a bundle.

If you do not elevate this to top management, then it will remain a feudal war and finger pointing....

Input from the customer (by accepting/rejecting suspect material when conditions or contract dictate customer should be involved) is actually one of the steps in our MRB flow chart.

One aspect of nonconformance is delivery date delay. Good practice suggests customer be notified of delay and reason. Often a customer desperate for the goods will either ask for representative samples (or send an agent to investigate) and determine whether the shipment is usable for customer's purposes.

Customer always has the right to temporarily (one shipment) or permanently (remainder of order) modify the acceptance criteria for a product or service.

I see this as reinforcing the role of MRB in using ALL resources to determine the final disposition of the product. Thanks for the addition! I may have been uncharacteristically "short-winded" in my original answer!http://elsmar.com/Forums/images/smilies/lmao.gif


Lets illustrate this point a little more. On the CAPTOR mine program (years ago, less I be accused of giving away secrets) it was discovered that an entire run (60 pcs) af anchor cutters were "soft". It turns out that the heat treat used to hardened the cutters was not up to spec. Off to MRB they went and any experienced QAE recognized that these were destined for the scrap pile. Well not so said the CPO because they were sample tested and it was proved they could make one cut.

Now, as luck would have it, there was also a service contract on the mines to replace batteries every 6-months. So a deal was struck to use the defective cutters and in 6-months, when batteries were changed we would also change the cutters.

Now, if the mine had already been deployed the only way to change batteries was to bring the mine to the surface. To do this (guess what) the anchor chain had to be cut and so the cutter would have to be replaced anyway. :lmao:

Now, lets start a discussion on design specifications and how they were arrived at! Any one care to contribute stories of this nature ? Should this be a new thred?

Actually Jim, aren't you taking about disposition of non-conforming product in your example? I don't think you would be too successful in getting the Navy or the Gov to back down from "Design Intent".

I would like to go back to one item Techrat pointed out. The operators have been given the tools to identify the problems. The only response to this was from s-bell who took it as 1) Complacent operators, or 2) Operators who passed bad product anyway.
My first reaction is what is the process engineer doing about the nonconformaces identified?
How many times have we heard that problems have been identified but no one is doing anything about them? How many times have these operators raised flags on nonconformances and no one acted to correct the problem? Why should they keep informing people (management) about a problem no one seems to be interested in??? And lastly, has anyone asked the operators for input on how to correct this problem? Or is it being handled by the upscale and untouchable MRB?
Personally, I hate committees & meetings but they are a necessary evil. However, I have always felt that the closer to the event you can get, the better the correction effort becomes. Plus you get ownership and buy in from the operators. Let them work with the product or process engineer in a hands on environment and both will learn valuble lessons.

Actually Jim, aren't you taking about disposition of non-conforming product in your example? I don't think you would be too successful in getting the Navy or the Gov to back down from "Design Intent".

I would like to go back to one item Techrat pointed out. The operators have been given the tools to identify the problems. The only response to this was from s-bell who took it as 1) Complacent operators, or 2) Operators who passed bad product anyway.
My first reaction is what is the process engineer doing about the nonconformaces identified?
How many times have we heard that problems have been identified but no one is doing anything about them? How many times have these operators raised flags on nonconformances and no one acted to correct the problem? Why should they keep informing people (management) about a problem no one seems to be interested in??? And lastly, has anyone asked the operators for input on how to correct this problem? Or is it being handled by the upscale and untouchable MRB?
Personally, I hate committees & meetings but they are a necessary evil. However, I have always felt that the closer to the event you can get, the better the correction effort becomes. Plus you get ownership and buy in from the operators. Let them work with the product or process engineer in a hands on environment and both will learn valuble lessons.


Well, yes and no. Certainly nonconforming product was dispositioned by a higher authority then MRB, but the point is, since the cutter only has to make one cut why design one that will make multiple cuts.
Certainly we have all seen the default tolerancing block on drawings that may or may not be worth while depending on product and function. But I have seen these used where a two decimal point number must have a tolerance of +/- 0.010" when the actual product functions quite well at +/-0.250"!

So my question becomes, is this a case of overdesign and how rampant is it in the various industries?

Or is it being handled by the upscale and untouchable MRB?
Personally, I hate committees & meetings but they are a necessary evil. However, I have always felt that the closer to the event you can get, the better the correction effort becomes. Plus you get ownership and buy in from the operators. Let them work with the product or process engineer in a hands on environment and both will learn valuble lessons.It is true. There are some clueless MRBs. There are also some "elite" MRBs who have never been on a shop floor.

As I pointed out in my original post,
MRB members are multi-disciplinary (engineering, operations, purchasing, sales, management, Quality) - a quorum is necessary for MRB to proceed.

I have battled my entire career against the image of Quality function being equated with police function. Our MRBs have only minority representation by Quality (after all, they are one of the functions being examined by the MRB - i. e. "was the inspection done correctly?")

Just because there are incompetent MRBs does not negate the idea of an MRB function. Rather, the organization should look for continual improvement, especially on the MRB function.

Sometimes the answer to the problem is creating a "cool" name for a function, so people in Mfg think this is something really cutting edge. Why not let the propsed inspector be a "product and process auditor"? I once called them Customer Advocate Auditors (y'know -- be the customers eyes and ears in the factory, advocating for the customer).

The job of this person was to do inspection, but more importantly, discover the root causes through analysis of the nonconforming product that was found. We used the standard qc tools for root cause, corrective actions, etc. Pareto charts were our friends. This led us to implement PFMEA (process failure modes effects analysis) and other tools for doing a better job with process control. It eventually led to the Mfg Manager agreeing that SPC was a GOOD tool, and then we did that, too.

Remember, you cannot just put any inspector in that audit position. You need someone with the right skills set.

Good luck. :yes:

But I have seen these used where a two decimal point number must have a tolerance of +/- 0.010" when the actual product functions quite well at +/-0.250"!

So my question becomes, is this a case of overdesign and how rampant is it in the various industries?

Jim:

I believe that this is part of the point of Taguchi's loss function - there is a cost associated with being "too good". But, when testing variation and real world application are taken into account (not to mention safety factors) how do we know when we really are "too good"? (rhetorical question, BTW).

In the cutters case discussed here: if a cutter failed on the first try, would a second one be available? If so, then maybe the spec should be examined. When faced with the prospect of a lot lower price, a case might be made with customers that the less expensive route is the best.

As far as specs go, let's think about computers. There are some whiz-bang lightning fast models out there, with fast processors, tons of RAM, and a relatively high price tag. Among many people I know, though, the $499 (and less in some cases) computers are what they are interested in - they just want email and internet access. Excel scares them. So ( and those familiar with Crosby will recognize this) for them the $499 computer meets their requirements and is therefore a quality computer. However, if they want to play the latest games, then the $499 box will just not do.

'scuse the ramble, please.

Craig H.

Jim:

In the cutters case discussed here: if a cutter failed on the first try, would a second one be available? If so, then maybe the spec should be examined. When faced with the prospect of a lot lower price, a case might be made with customers that the less expensive route is the best.


Craig H.

You can ramble all you wish. Some of it actually made sense to me. But to answer your question if the mine was deployed it was under water, one shot is all you get.
PS. The CAPTOR mine was a torpedo tube containing a torpedo and listning devices that was deployed in the harbors, anchored to the bottom. It listened for the enemy ship and would launch torpedo (MK46) when enemy ship was heard. :agree1:

PS. The CAPTOR mine was a torpedo tube containing a torpedo and listning devices that was deployed in the harbors, anchored to the bottom. It listened for the enemy ship and would launch torpedo (MK46) when enemy ship was heard. :agree1: Hopefully not while your trying to cut it loose. :blowup:

You can ramble all you wish. Some of it actually made sense to me. But to answer your question if the mine was deployed it was under water, one shot is all you get.
PS. The CAPTOR mine was a torpedo tube containing a torpedo and listning devices that was deployed in the harbors, anchored to the bottom. It listened for the enemy ship and would launch torpedo (MK46) when enemy ship was heard. :agree1:


Um, I'll take the device that is IN spec, thank you.

As I work with mines that are big holes in the ground (without an explosion), the other type did not come to mind.

Craig

First off, I would like to say thank you for all of your responses. I am glad to see that there is a fair variety of different view points in this group because it allows me to evaluate my position more objectively.
It was also helpful to see some feedback on how I have projected my position i.e.

To summarize some of the things that I am taking away from this thread:

The manufacturing process must be improved to "fix" the problem

Analysis based on real data must be used to find the biggest opportunities for improvement.

The manufacturing process must be improved to "fix" problem.

The efforts for improvement must be collateral and include everyone.

I thought that becoming more active in this forum would help me analize situations more thoroughly ...... and I am already reaping the bennefits. -Techrat
OK, Techrat. Bring us up to date. Have you been able to implement any of the tips from Covers in this thread or the other one you started? Part of our personal "evaluation" in our continual improvement program is to learn whether the advice or suggestions we write have any value for the intended market.

Hello All!
I am so glad that Wes has followed up on this thread because it has reminded me that I need to continue to develop solutions for our quality problems. Although I have been following various threads in the cove, I have become complacent in participating and starting new threads. (This was a good reminder of how much I took away from my last posting to the cove)
To answer the question that was posed by Wes;
Have you been able to implement any of the tips from Covers in this thread or the other one you started?

The short answer is Yes! To expand slightly, I have acted on many of the suggestions given in this thread, the process of (quality) recovery is still however in its infancy. I still face many challenges, and expect to involve this resource in the process of overcoming them. I have found the response to be valuable in raw content as well as in the inspirational energy that they provide to me.

Thanks! -Techrat

Um, I'll take the device that is IN spec, thank you.

As I work with mines that are big holes in the ground (without an explosion), the other type did not come to mind.

Craig

Craig, my apologies! I never once gave a thought that some one might not know what a CAPTOR mine was. I guess when you work with these things for several years you become complacent and comfortable within the peer group.
I guess the same goes for the term "MRB". I knew immediately what techrat was speaking about and would have made the same mistake there.

Speaking of MRB, I do wish to point out that our MRB investigation was always conducted in teams of two or more people. For all the programs I dealt with (Captor, P-II, DSMAC, F-15, etc.) I always had a design engineer by my side and we always had access to any other discipline (purchasing, planning, etc.) that was necessary. It was exactly as Wes, described it! :agree1:

But throughout my experience we specifically aimed at eliminating the MRB process. Our inspectors and supervisor were trained to recognize, at the point of nonconformance, how to perform a "pre-liminary disposition" to rework to drawing. They could even call on the MRB to assist in this disposition. If it could not be reworked to drawing then it had to be sent to MRB. MRB could disposition to Repair but only with customer approval.

The years I spent in the MRB process were the most fulfilling of my entire career!

Had a recent nonconforming item in our shop. Want to put up annoucement, do some retraining and possibly generate a flyer or notice that includes a picture of the item and some words. Does anybody have an example of a notice they used to communicate a nonconforming item to plant personnel. I have looked for some templates in WORD, but not found anything useful. I think a notice/flyer would be good to increase awareness throughout the plant. Any ideas or suggestions???

Had a recent nonconforming item in our shop. Want to put up annoucement, do some retraining and possibly generate a flyer or notice that includes a picture of the item and some words. Does anybody have an example of a notice they used to communicate a nonconforming item to plant personnel. I have looked for some templates in WORD, but not found anything useful. I think a notice/flyer would be good to increase awareness throughout the plant. Any ideas or suggestions???Whatever you use, I would suggest limiting circulation to personnel who actually had "hands on" connection with product to either make it, inspect it, or ship it, avoiding an appearance of holding those folk up to "ridicule" from others. Most importantly, the document should have a sense of "opportunity for improvement" (OFI) versus "Tsk! Tsk!"

OFI means you have

researched the root cause
set up an error proofing process to prevent recurrence in the future
absolutely avoid any hint of "detection after the product becomes nonconforming."

Thanks. I guess I am a little upset after weeks of working to get back in business, laying people off and then recalling them and not to forget all the hoops we jumped through. As we should have. There is probably too much TSK, TSK in the message below:

OOPS!!!!
We did it wrong again. After weeks of working to get Company XXX back on line, first time back in business our parts were rejected because of ___________.


If you see a problem, have a concern or question about a job then contact Management (XXX or YYY) and Quality (ZZZ or QQQ) IMMEDIATELY

It takes all of us working together with our eyes open to make sure we produce the quality parts our customers expect.

The graphics didn't paste in, but I had hands covering mouth and then later someone shaking their head, along with photo of item.

I will consider your suggestion.

What do you mean by absolutely no hint of detection after the nonconformity?

What do you mean by absolutely no hint of detection after the nonconformity?Good question! I did not consider my audience when I wrote that.

One of the hallmarks of modern Quality theory is to
"PREVENT nonconformance versus DETECT nonconformance."

If you wait until AFTER the product has been produced or the service performed to discover/detect a nonconformance, you have spent money on materials and resources producing a product or service that cannot be sold to a customer without repair or rework, costing MORE money, eroding the profit on the product or service to the point of often generating a loss - in one case, a company was effectively sending free products to the customer wrapped in ten dollar bills because of the losses incurred in producing scrap (non-conforming parts.)

Once you do detect a nonconformance, it is often cost-effective to shut down production until you learn the root cause of the nonconformance and take action to prevent recurrence, usually by changing some aspect of the process.

Therefore, not only do you want to call attention to detecting a non-conforming product, but alert the folks to the need for determining what the root cause of the nonconformance was and formulating a Corrective Action to prevent recurrence..

Thanks. I have performed a root cause analysis and have started implementing corrective actions. It is always best to prevent versus detect, but in this case it just didn't happen. and it wasn't anything I even suspected could have occurred. Experience is a great teacher. But rework is definitely expensive and at the top of my list to eliminate.