Hourly Check Sheets, Waste of paper or integral part of quality system?

I have recently been involved with the steering group in our company for the implamentation of TS 16949. This is an ideal opportunity for us as a company to improve our current working practises.
Currently our shop floor workers have a tick sheet on-line which they must tick once per hour for each dimension on the control plan.
Has anyone evolved from this routine?
New to this site but am very impressed with some of the feedback from other discussion threads, please share your experience, thanks, Chris

Welcome to the Cove Chris.

The key to the question is what is required by your control plan? Sometimes, a checksheet as you describe documents the action of meeting a specific requirement of the job. From what I read, the requirement is there to do a measurement for each dimension. If the control is listed, for example, as "Hourly checksheet", I would say you have to continue to document the measurements as specified. If however, there is no specific requirement for the documentation, you could consider a single sign-off by the operator/QC showing it was done hourly throughout the shift.

I have found the use of checkmarks as documentation to be unreliable. I would much prefer the actual measurement to be recorded. It offers much more information about the process. If the operators use checkmarks, they tend to just go down the line with checks whether they measured or not.

Dave

Checksheet

Welcome Chris!

[If the operators use checkmarks, they tend to just go down the line with checks whether they measured or not.]

I tend to agree with you Dave, however I think anyone who would falsify a checklist would also do the same with a sheet where they have to record the measurements. It's real easy to write something down quickly and go on about their business. I think a good relationship with the employees is the best way to ensure checks are being done. They have to be involved!

Russ

Agreed Russ, but I didn't mean they would purposely falsify the checklist. I have found a lot of times one of the measurements may be skipped for some reason or other but get checked off as a matter of routine. Your point is valid either way though.

Dave

I agree periodic control measurements should be actual measurement, not just go/no go attribute.

That is a different matter from dealing with the possibility/probability of "fudging" the data.

I find that fudging the data becomes less of an issue if the Control Plan is specific and actually provides time for the operator to perform this task instead of forcing him to choose between activities in a rushed atmosphere of hurry-hurry.

Depending on budget, quantities involved, and Cpk targets, many organizations find investing in capability for direct wire readings of instruments into computer programs eliminates minor "read" errors caused by eyesight and dyslexia as well as the inclination to "fudge" a reading.

Production workers and check sheets = a dangerous situation without QA Auditing.

The intent is great, inprocess inspection at the machine…outstanding !

But you need to ensure that the operators are not going through the motions. So you have QA or some type of auditor do random checks through out the day and the operators know you are serious.

Actuals are always better then checks. But I have used checks with SPC Precontrol and it worked great.

Agreed - if you can get to the stage of using pre-control, a simple check should work well. Further to that, IMO, pre-control should always be based on a stable, controlled process with a high Cpk.

Dave

Good Points Dave

D.Scott said:

Agreed - if you can get to the stage of using pre-control, a simple check should work well. Further to that, IMO, pre-control should always be based on a stable, controlled process with a high Cpk.

Dave

Click to expand...

If you have a stable, controlled process with a high Cpk you shouldn't need to do hourly measurements. What would the point of doing the statistical analysis have been? We need to put the emphasis on controlling the process, which is done by proving (statistically) that the chosen process controls will result in conforming output.

I can think of many valid reasons for hourly checks, regardless of other SPC or Cpk considerations.

Many times the frequency of these checks (hourly, per shift, per 24 hours, etc) is also dependent on the quantity of pieces produced during that time period.

I remember a time, before we switched focus to become a contract manufacturer, when we might be working on a tool for molding in which the same workpiece might be in the machining center for nearly a week. Even then, we sometimes stopped the process to measure progress, taking actual measurements versus making check marks.