How comprehensive should a process flow be? Production Operation

[Manix]

I am stuck in the middle of meeting customer requirements and presenting commercial arguments (one in the same I hear you all say)!

I am producing a process flow for a production operation. The part is manufactured overseas and shipped to us here in the UK. We then ship this to the customer after a quality inspection and decant operation.

One of the commercial managers at my company wants me to add this quality inspection and decant to the process flow (for commercial reasons!). We would not normally do this, but is it commonplace? Should you include this outside operation on the process flow?

How would you represent this? You should, I guess indicate that the part has left the line, is shipped and then inspected & decanted, before being shipped again.

Can anyone offer advice?

Cheers,

[Jim Wynne]

Originally Posted by Manix

I am stuck in the middle of meeting customer requirements and presenting commercial arguments (one in the same I hear you all say)!

I am producing a process flow for a production operation. The part is manufactured overseas and shipped to us here in the UK. We then ship this to the customer after a quality inspection and decant operation.

One of the commercial managers at my company wants me to add this quality inspection and decant to the process flow (for commercial reasons!). We would not normally do this, but is it commonplace? Should you include this outside operation on the process flow?

How would you represent this? You should, I guess indicate that the part has left the line, is shipped and then inspected & decanted, before being shipped again.

Manix,
It's not clear from your post what's going on. In the first paragraph you say

We...ship this to the customer after a quality inspection and decant operation.

Then you say,emphasis added,

Should you include this outside operation on the process flow?

If you are referring to what you do as the "outside operation" (i.e., you're not receiving the thing and then sending it out somewhere for inspection and decant) then what you're doing is part of the process flow and should be included.
What does your customer want to see? What do you mean by "commercial reasons"? What do you see as the objective or purpose of the PFD?

[IEGeek]

I have to agree. What exactly are you trying to accomplish?

If you receive the parts from an "outside source" (whether your facility in another county or a completly seperate supplier) then you decant, then inspect, then ship to the final destination, they should be added to the process flow.

I am not sure who the customer is, nor does it matter, however if you are the last person to touch the product prior to the final destination then you need to have processes defined and included on the Process Flow.

For example, we manufacture parts here in Southern CA. They are boxed and shipped to an affiliate (same owner, different companies) of ours in Northern CA. They laser etch and stamp all the parts, conduct a Visual, ID, OD, Wall Thickness inspection and repackage and ship to our customer. All those processes are on our flow diagram, and there are SOPs for each operation. All dimensional and performance testing is done here in Southern CA (Burst, Adhesion, Etc.)

In my opinion you need to add them to your flow diagram and ensure that the processes are documented and audited. "Commercial Reasons" or not.

Jsut some thoughts....

[Manix]

Sorry, maybe I should have explained it better.

Basically our remote factory manufacturers the part. They then ship it to us and we decant and inspect. Our process flows usually only cover the manufacturing operation done remotely. They do not normally include anything done after shipping the part from the production line.

So what I am saying is, the inspections/decant that we do here, is remote from the manufacturing process and therfore not normally included on the process flow.

The commercial reasons are that we want to appear to have a hand in the process and therefore get credti for doing something before the customer sees the part!

[IEGeek]

Having a hand in the process to get credit is a poor excuse.

Who cares who gets credit? If it is for sales purposes to justify a cost increase then Ok, I understand, I disagree, but I understand.

The decanting should be a seperate process and then the packaging and shipment should be a seperate process. The process is not complete until the customer accepts the part anyways. Your remote location manufactures the part, you decant and ship. You are part of the process.

All of our process flow diagrams and processes end with "Customer Acceptance" realizing that all companies are different, you stated yours stops at shipment. The remote location is not shipping, they are transferring to you, then you are shipping. Imagine you have an off site warehouse or a 3PL and you ship them parts. They repackage and ship your orders. They are a part of the process.

Just some thoughts.....

[Jim Wynne]

Originally Posted by Manix

Sorry, maybe I should have explained it better.

Basically our remote factory manufacturers the part. They then ship it to us and we decant and inspect. Our process flows usually only cover the manufacturing operation done remotely. They do not normally include anything done after shipping the part from the production line.

So what I am saying is, the inspections/decant that we do here, is remote from the manufacturing process and therfore not normally included on the process flow.

The commercial reasons are that we want to appear to have a hand in the process and therefore get credti for doing something before the customer sees the part!

I think IEGEEK's response is generally good, and I agree that what you're doing should be included. In general, the criteria I use for what should be included are:

1. If the process adds value to the part or product, include it.
2. If the process has the potential to affect product quality, include it.

The reasons for the two universal criteria are that inclusion in the PFD, (if APQP is done correctly) will assure that the processes are included in risk analysis (PFMEA) and appropriate controls will be identified and documented.

[Manix]

Thanks IE GEEK, I take your points.

Perhaps I was being a bit unfair in saying we are doing something just to get credit. It's a bit of a complex customer with complex issues!

Anyway, what I thnk I will do is add these operations to the process flow and subsequently the PFMEA and Control Plan.

I like your thoughts on 'Transferring' Rather than Shipping. This may now be represented in all my Process Flows.

Does anyone else feel that despite all the standards, the regulations etc, that we only end up leaving everything down to interpretation anyway! Sure they give us good guidlines from which to work, but if the customer wants it their way then thats it!

As you maybe aware I am YOUNG I will learn (or maybe I will change the way we work, challenge, explore, maybe find the ultimate system that works for everybody) Then again maybe I'll win the lottery and not have to bother!

[IEGeek]

Well good luck and keep us posted.